People v. Harrell
Decision Date | 21 December 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 3,A,3 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter HARRELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. pril Term. 398 Mich. 384, 247 N.W.2d 829 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
State Appellate Defender Office by Marshall S. Redman, Asst. Defender, Detroit, for appellant.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of assaulting a police officer, M.C.L.A. § 750.479; M.S.A. § 28.747, and fleeing and eluding a police officer, M.C.L.A. § 750.479a; M.S.A. § 28.747(1). On December 23, 1971, defendant was sentenced to 6 months in jail and $150 costs, or an additional 30 days in jail on one count, and a suspended sentence of $100 fine and $100 costs on the other count.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 1 This Court granted leave to appeal limited to the two questions considered herein. 2
Defendant is a young black man and most of the police officers involved in the incident are white. Prior to trial, defense counsel submitted 120 questions to be asked during voir dire. In lieu of the defendant's 120 questions, the trial judge announced that he would utilize seven of the defendant's questions to cover any bias or racial prejudice in the proposed jurors.
1. Did the trial court's refusal to submit 120 questions to the jury on voir dire deny defendant a trial by a fair and impartial jury by preventing a meaningful exercise of challenges for cause?
2. Did the trial court's refusal to submit 120 questions to the jury on voir dire deny defendant a trial by a fair and impartial jury by preventing the intelligent use of peremptory challenges?
In Michigan, the examination of prospective jurors may be conducted by the court or, in its discretion, by the attorneys. 3 The scope of voir dire examination of jurors is within the discretion of the trial judge and his decision will not be set aside absent an abuse of that discretion. 4 Voir dire affords attorneys an opportunity to elicit sufficient information to develop a rational basis for excluding veniremen whether for cause or by peremptory challenges. 5
Relying on Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973) and related Federal appellate decisions, the defendant maintains he had a constitutional right to voir dire the veniremen further on racial prejudice. Although it is true that the Ham decision held that the 14th amendment required the trial judge to interrogate jurors upon the subject of racial prejudice after the defendant's timely request, Ham does not stand for the proposition that the trial judge must ask every question dealing with racial prejudice that the defense might wish to be heard.
Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, stated:
409 U.S. 527--528, 93 S.Ct. 850--851.
While concurring in part and dissenting in part with the majority's decision in Ham, Justice Marshall stated:
Footnote 2 at 409 U.S. 533, 93 S.Ct. 853 specifically holds:
'I also agree with the majority that the judge may properly decline to ask the question in any particular form or ask any particular number of questions on a subject.'
In its most recent pronouncement in this area, the Supreme Court of the United States, by Justice Powell, held that voir dire about racial prejudice is not constitutionally required absent circumstances comparable in significance to those existing in Ham, supra. Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976). Defendant Ross was a black man who was charged with two other blacks for the armed robbery, assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and assault and battery with intent to murder of a white man employed by Boston University as a security guard. The trial judge refused to pose a question directly related to racial prejudice during the voir dire of the veniremen.
The Court's opinion said Ham 'reflected an assessment of whether under all of the circumstances presented there was a constitutionally significant likelihood that, absent questioning about racial prejudice' the jury would not be impartial:
Unlike Ham, 'the need to question veniremen specifically about racial prejudice' did not rise 'to constitutional dimensions' in Ristaino.
Although the questions were not constitutionally required in Ristaino, footnote 9 of the opinion said 'the wiser course generally is to propound appropriate questions designed to identify racial pejudice if requested by the defendant'. The states 'are free to allow or require questions not demanded by the Constitution'.
In the instant case, the following colloquy took place between defense counsel and the trial judge in chambers:
During the voir dire, the trial court asked the following questions:
'Have any of you had any dealings or experiences with black persons that might make it difficult for you to sit in impartial judgment on this case? By 'you' I mean also members of your immediate family, your spouse, your children?
(none)
Our examination of the 120 questions proposed by counsel discloses that many are repetitive of the Court questionnaire 6 and many are not proper for voir dire. 7
In the instant case, the trial court followed the course of action recommended by the United States Supreme Court in Ristaino, supra. We find no abuse of the trial court's discretion. The trial court's voir dire contained questions regarding racial prejudice which were sufficient to afford defense counsel information necessary to challenge prospective jurors, either peremptorily 8 or for cause. Defendant's right to be tried by an impartial jury was protected by the judge's questioning.
The defendant's conviction is affirmed.
We all agree that the purpose of voir dire, as expressed in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Prast
...is within the discretion of the trial judge and his decision will not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Harrell, 398 Mich. 384, 388, 247 N.W.2d 829 (1976). The examination of prospective jurors may be conducted by the court or, in its discretion, by the attorneys. Id., 3......
-
People v. Furman
...dire is entrusted to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion. People v. Harrell, 398 Mich. 384, 388, 247 N.W.2d 829 (1976). We reject both of defendant's arguments in light of the record presented in this case. Although there had been pretri......
-
People v. Tyburski
...of peremptory challenges. So to limit the examination is an abuse of discretion. [Id. at 438-439, 286 N.W. 673.] In People v. Harrell, 398 Mich. 384, 247 N.W.2d 829 (1976), this Court was presented with a challenge to the voir dire following the trial court's refusal to submit 120 questions......
-
State v. Fool Bull
...question. State v. Muetze, 368 N.W.2d 575, 584 (S.D.1985) (citing Wilson v. Ceretti, 210 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 1973); People v. Harrell, 398 Mich. 384, 247 N.W.2d 829 (1976); Hammill v. State, 89 Wis.2d 404, 278 N.W.2d 821 (1979)). In voir dire, an abuse of discretion occurs when the defendant i......