No. 48117-7-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: August 19, 2002. DO NOT CITE. SEE RAP 10.4(h). UNPUBLISHED OPINION.
Appeal from Superior Court of King County, No. 001070787, Hon. William L. Downing, February 5, 2001, Judgment or order under review.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, 810 Third Avenue, 320 Central Building, Seattle, WA 98104.
Eric Broman, Nielsen Broman Assoc. Pllc, 810 3rd Ave Ste 320, Seattle, WA 98104.
John E. Bell, 415 12th St. W, P.O. Box 41174, Olympia, WA 98504-1174.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/Appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Kathryn Y. Kim, King County Prosecutors Office, W554, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104.
PER CURIAM.
Carl Lewis was charged with one count of third degree assault domestic violence. He now contends that the trial court did not allow him sufficient time during voir dire to question potential jurors so that he could select a fair and impartial jury. Because a review of the record reveals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in managing voir dire and Lewis has shown no prejudice, we affirm. At voir dire, the trial court asked the potential jurors a series of questions regarding areas of potential prejudice, including involvement with domestic violence or alcohol use. Each attorney then asked questions, and defense counsel asked for opinions regarding assault and domestic violence.
The trial court excused two jurors sua sponte, and neither party sought to utilize a challenge for cause. Defense counsel excused four jurors using peremptory challenges and then stated, `We would pass the panel for cause at this point.’ The trial court asked, `Both sides accept the jury as presently impaneled?’ and defense counsel answered, `Yes.’ The jurors were released, and Lewis moved for a mistrial on the basis that at the beginning of jury selection, both the trial court and the judge who had heard pretrial motions had represented that each side would have two 30-minute sessions to question the jurors but had then restricted each side to one 20-minute session. Lewis claimed that this restriction prevented him from asking questions about the law, the burden of proof, reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence.
The trial judge denied the motion for mistrial, stating that he never said each side would have two 30-minute sessions. He stated that there is no standard practice in the county; rather, the practice varies from judge to judge. The judge noted that his usual practice is to ask general questions and then allow the parties to ask questions that are more specific. Because, in the court’s opinion, much of the time was devoted to advocacy by suggesting lines of thought to the jurors, and since the court reviewed the legal standards with the potential jurors, the judge found that Lewis was not prejudiced in the composition of the jury. Lewis was convicted as charged.
The United States and Washington constitutions guarantee criminal defendants the right to trial by an impartial jury.[1] In Washington, the trial court has discretion in conducting voir dire.[2] We review the trial court’s determinations regarding the conduct of voir dire for abuse of discretion; absent a showing of such abuse and of substantial prejudice to the defendant, we will not overturn the trial court’s rulings.[3] Our court rules provide that [a] voir dire examination shall be conducted for the purpose of discovering any basis for challenge for cause and for the purpose of gaining knowledge to enable an intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. The judge shall initiate the voir dire examination . . . [and] [t]he judge and counsel may then ask the prospective jurors questions touching their qualifications to serve as jurors in the case, subject to the supervision of the court as appropriate to the facts of the case. CrR 6.4(b).
A defendant may question prospective jurors carefully and to an extent sufficient to provide him or her reasonable protection.[4] However, the function of voir dire is not to inform the jury about the facts of the case, prejudice them for or against one of the parties, argue the case, or instruct them as to the law.[5]
After reviewing the record in this case, we cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in limiting Lewis to 20 minutes to question the prospective jurors. The judge first questioned them extensively regarding areas of possible prejudice, including knowledge of the participants in the trial, involvement in police work or family or friends involved with such work, difficulty in judging police credibility, involvement in domestic violence or alcohol, and ability to be fair in such a case. Defense counsel questioned the prospective jurors regarding when an argument or fight becomes an assault and whether domestic violence is the same as assault. The defense exercised four challenges and then stated that he accepted the jury. Lewis has shown nothing in the record indicating that his rights were prejudiced by the trial court’s conduct of voir dire, and we find none in our review. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
(1985).