Mason v. Com.
Decision Date | 17 April 1998 |
Docket Number | Record No. 971818. |
Citation | 498 S.E.2d 921,255 Va. 505 |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | Robert K. MASON, a/k/a Anthony Bernard Smith v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Joseph H. Beale, Washington, DC, for appellant.
Michael T. Judge, Assistant Attorney General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
In this appeal, we consider whether the trial court should have removed a juror, who had been empanelled and sworn without objection, because the juror purportedly lacked sufficient proficiency in the English language.
Robert K. Mason was indicted by an Arlington County grand jury for the felony of habitual petit larceny in violation of Code §§ 18.2-96 and -104. At a jury trial, the trial court and counsel for the litigants participated in the voir dire. Upon conclusion of the voir dire, the Commonwealth and the defendant exercised their peremptory challenges, and a jury consisting of 12 members was empanelled without objection.
During the guilt phase of the bifurcated trial, the Commonwealth and the defendant presented their opening statement, evidence, and closing argument. The jury then deliberated and returned a verdict of guilty. In the sentencing phase at the trial, the Commonwealth presented additional evidence, but the defendant presented no evidence. The trial court instructed the jury on sentencing, defense counsel presented argument to the jury, and the jury retired to deliberate the defendant's sentence.
While the jury was deliberating, defense counsel made a motion for a mistrial because he had received information that one of the jurors purportedly had "great difficulty understanding English." The trial court interrupted the jury's deliberations, summoned the jurors to the courtroom, and the following colloquy occurred:
After the jury had returned to the jury room to continue its deliberations, the court further explained its ruling denying the defendant's motion:
The jury concluded its deliberations and fixed the defendant's punishment at three years and nine months in the penitentiary. The jury was polled, and each juror responded affirmatively when asked by the clerk, "is this your verdict?"
After the jury was discharged, the defendant renewed his motion for a mistrial. Denying that motion, the trial court stated:
The trial court entered a judgment confirming the jury's verdict, and the Court of Appeals, in an unpublished memorandum opinion, affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Robert Mason, a/k/a Anthony Bernard Smith v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0499-96-4, 1997 WL 342963 (1997). Mason appeals.
Mason argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial because due process requires a trial by an impartial jury of 12 members competent in the English language. The Commonwealth responds that the defendant's due process rights were not abridged because the challenged juror had a sufficient understanding of the English language. We agree with the Commonwealth.
A defendant in a criminal prosecution has a fundamental right to a trial by an impartial jury. U.S.C.A. Const. amends. VI and XIV; Va. Const. art. I, § 8; Gray v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shaikh v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2614-03-4 (VA 1/25/2005)
...his own admission, he could not even comprehend some of the questions being asked during voir dire.1 Shaikh claims Mason v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 505, 498 S.E.2d 921 (1998), requires that we reverse the trial judge's decision to excuse Siam for lacking English fluency. Like Siam, the juror ......
-
Prieto v. Warden of the Sussex I State Prison
...as to probably cause injustice in a criminal case to the Commonwealth or to the accused.” Code § 8.01–352; see Mason v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 505, 510, 498 S.E.2d 921, 923 (1998) (affirming trial court's denial of defendant's motion for a mistrial where the record failed to demonstrate the ......
-
Sloan v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0899-07-3 (Va. App. 10/7/2008)
...an impartial jury requires that the jury be capable of understanding the factual issues that it must resolve." Mason v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 505, 509, 498 S.E.2d 921, 923 (1998). An objection to a juror on account of a disability may be made after the jury is sworn with leave of court. Cod......
-
Clarke v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0930-08-2 (Va. App. 5/26/2009)
...and willing to decide the case solely on the evidence before it." Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217 (1982). Mason v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 505, 509, 498 S.E.2d 921, 923 (1998) (defendant was not denied his right to a fair trial where it was discovered, after the penalty phase of trial, t......