People v. Sears, Docket No. 78-1313

• Decision Date: 03 January 1979
• Docket Number: Docket No. 78-1313
• Citation: 276 N.W.2d 496,88 Mich.App. 1
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Arnold SEARS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 496

276 N.W.2d 496

88 Mich.App. 1

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy Arnold SEARS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 78-1313.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Jan. 3, 1979.

Released for Publication March 29, 1979.

Kraus & Ferris, P. C. by John T. Ferris, Bad Axe, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., J. Anthony Sykora, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before CYNAR, P. J., and R. B. BURNS and BREIGHNER, ^* JJ.

R. B. BURNS, Judge.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of larceny in a building, contrary to M.C.L. § 750.360; M.S.A. § 28.592, and appeals.

The jury that sat at defendant's trial was selected three weeks prior to trial in a procedure by which the entire jury panel was assembled on one day and all defendants who had trials scheduled that month were required with their attorneys to choose a jury for their trial. Defense counsel objected that the procedure restricted defendant's rights to conduct a voir dire of the jurors and to challenge the jurors. In the interval between the date the jury was selected and defendant's trial, various members of his jury heard unspecified types of criminal trials. However, on the date set for trial, defendant was not given an opportunity to conduct a voir dire of the jury to ascertain whether any of the jurors had formed opinions prejudicial to defendant while sitting on these other trials.

In Fedorinchik v. Stewart, 289 Mich. 436, 438-439, 286 N.W. 673, 674 (1939), the Supreme Court wrote:

"It is indispensable to a fair trial that a litigant be given a reasonable opportunity to ascertain on the Voir dire whether any of the jurors summoned are subject to being challenged for cause or even peremptorily. In a large measure the scope of examination of jurors on Voir dire is within the discretion of the trial judge; but it must not be so limited as to exclude a showing of facts that would constitute ground for challenging for cause or the reasonable exercise of peremptory challenges. So to limit the examination is an abuse of discretion."

The procedure of jury selection in this case improperly restricted defendant's ability to conduct a voir dire of the jurors and engage in the reasonable exercise of challenges.

Reversed and remanded.

CYNAR, Judge (dissenting).

I would affirm. No further voir dire was requested at the time of the trial. Furthermore, prior to the start of the trial the trial judge asked the jurors if they had...