State v. Celian
| Decision Date | 25 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 107197,ED 107197 |
| Citation | 613 S.W.3d 380 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Kenol CELIAN, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
FOR APPELLANT, Katharine P. Curry, Woodrail Centre, 1000 W. Nifong, Building 7, Suite 100, Columbia, Missouri 65203.
FOR RESPONDENTS, Evan J. Buchheim, Eric Schmitt, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, Missouri 65102.
Kenol Celian appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County entered after a jury found him guilty of the class B felony of unlawful use of a weapon. He contends the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State during voir dire to present in explicit detail the facts of the case and to ask questions of prospective jurors in a manner that prejudiced him by predisposing the venire panel to react in a particular way favorable to the State to the anticipated evidence. We agree and therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.1
This case arose from an incident on the evening of September 20, 2015, when Nathaniel Myers and his sister, Jennifer Myers, were traveling in their minivan on Interstate 70 near O'Fallon, Missouri, and Celian allegedly drove up behind them in a large green SUV and with a firearm shot out the back right tire of the Myerses’ vehicle. The State charged Celian with one count of the class B felony of unlawful use of a weapon, claiming that he "knowingly discharged a firearm at a motor vehicle," and the case proceeded to a jury trial.
During voir dire, the State was permitted over Celian's objections to engage in a line of questioning in which it presented facts of the case to the venire panel in explicit detail. The transcript of the State's inquiry reads as follows:
The jury was empaneled, the case tried, and Celian was found guilty of the State's charge of unlawful use of a weapon and sentenced to a term of 15 years’ imprisonment. His motion for new trial, which asserted prejudice from the State's voir dire questioning, was denied. This appeal follows.
The State argues that Celian failed to preserve his claim that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State during voir dire to present in explicit detail the facts of the case and to ask questions of prospective jurors in a manner that predisposed the venire panel to react in a particular way favorable to the State to the anticipated evidence. We disagree. To preserve a claim of error, counsel's objection must be sufficiently specific to apprise the trial court of the grounds for the objection. State v. Amick , 462 S.W.3d 413, 415 (Mo. banc 2015) (citing State v. Stepter , 794 S.W.2d 649, 655 (Mo. banc 1990) ). And on appeal, the party asserting error must rely on the same theory that supported its objection at trial, or the issue is not preserved. State v. Schneider , 483 S.W.3d 495, 504 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016).
In this case, we conclude Celian's objections during voir dire and in his motion for new trial reasonably apprised the trial court of the same, sufficiently-specific issue he raises on appeal: that the State was permitted to divulge facts and ask questions based thereon in a manner that prejudiced him to the venire panel. Celian's objection during voir dire was that the State's questioning strayed "too far into the facts of [the] case" and effectively involved making an "opening statement" to prospective jurors—i.e., placing the State's theory of the case before them in light of anticipated evidence. See White v. State , 939 S.W.2d 887, 902 (Mo. banc 1997) (defining opening statement). The objection in Celian's motion for new trial was that the court committed reversible error by allowing the State "to give the venire panel specific facts about Defendant's case during voir dire" and to "repeatedly introduce the facts of the case into [its] questions for the panel," leaving him "without any opportunity ... to defend against [the State's version of events]." And Celian's point on appeal, articulating the same hazard, asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State's voir dire questioning because "the venire panel was tainted by the [State] divulging non-critical facts of the case that did not have a substantial probability of exposing a disqualifying bias in order to [ask questions] ... purely to predispose potential jurors to believe the State's arguments at trial." We find that the point was preserved.
The trial court supervises voir dire, and the nature and extent of the questions counsel may ask are discretionary with that court. State v. Walker , 448 S.W.3d 861, 867 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (citing Clark , 981 S.W.2d at 146 ). Specifically, and most relevant here, it falls to the trial court "to determine whether a disclosure of facts on voir dire is sufficient to assure the defendant of an impartial jury without, at the same time, being tantamount to a presentation of evidence" or argument that would tend to sow prejudice in the venire. State v. Reyes , 108 S.W.3d 161, 165-66 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (citing State v. Antwine , 743 S.W.2d 51, 58 (Mo. banc 1987) ).
We review for abuse of discretion such rulings made by the trial court during voir dire. Walker , 448 S.W.3d at 867 (citing Clark , 981 S.W.2d at 146 ). And if we find abuse, we will reverse if the defendant shows a real probability exists that he suffered prejudice as a result. Id.
A defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial jury. State v. Clark , 981 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. banc 1998) . One aspect of "the guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors." Id. (citing Morgan v. Illinois , 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992) ). The purpose of voir dire is to discover bias or prejudice in order to select a fair and impartial jury. Id. (). "Without an adequate voir dire the trial judge's responsibility to remove prospective jurors who will not be able impartially to follow the court's instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled." Id. (citing Morgan , 504 U.S. at 729-730, 112 S.Ct. 2222 ).
4. Parties may not try the case during voir dire—when prospective jurors are exposed to facts of the case in a manner that predisposes them to react in a particular way to anticipated evidence, prejudice may result.
In light of the purpose and timing of voir dire, neither the State nor defense counsel may try the case during that proceeding. Clark , 981 S.W.2d at 146 (citing Antwine , 743 S.W.2d at 58 ). Generally, argument or "a presentation of the facts in explicit detail" during voir...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Straughter
...prospective jurors in order to select a fair and impartial jury, to which a defendant is constitutionally entitled. State v. Celian, 613 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (citing State v. Clark, 981 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. banc 1998) (citing U.S. CONST. amends. VI, XIV; MO. CONST. art. I, s......
-
State v. Fields
...prosecutor's line of questioning during voir dire. Though "[a] defendant is entitled to a fair and impartial jury," State v. Celian , 613 S.W.3d 380, 385 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (citing State v. Clark , 981 S.W.2d 143, 146 (Mo. banc 1998) ), and " ‘[t]he purpose of voir dire is to discover bia......