Section 21.41 Scope of Examination

• Library: Criminal Practice 2012 Supp

5. (§21.41) Scope of Examination

As with so much else in the voir dire process, the nature and scope of inquiry allowed is largely in the discretion of the trial judge, subject to review only for a manifest abuse of discretion. But a liberal latitude is allowed in examination of the panel. State v. Lumsden, 589 S.W.2d 226 (Mo. banc 1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 984 (1980); State v. Newman, 651 S.W.2d 185 (Mo. App. W.D. 1983):

It is the rule in this state that a liberal latitude is allowed in the examination of the jurors on their voir dire. * * * (2) The purpose of the examination by defendant of the panel on their voir dire is to develop, not only facts which might form the basis of a challenge for cause, but also such facts as might be useful to him in intelligently determining his peremptory challenges.

State v. Granberry, 484 S.W.2d 295, 299 (Mo. banc 1972) (citing State v. Miller, 207 S.W. 797, 798 (Mo. 1918)). But compare State v. Thompson, 610 S.W.2d 629 (Mo. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 840 (1981), holding that the state may inquire concerning application of rules on felony-murder and accessories, and State v. Knapp, 534 S.W.2d 465 (Mo. App. E.D. 1975), finding it improper to tell the jury what the instructions will be or inform them as to law applicable to the case during voir dire. Although this conflict may be a result of the paraphrasing of the instructions in Knapp, that court did not refer to State v. Green, 511 S.W.2d 867 (Mo. 1974), or its requirement that the instruction must be stated verbatim or accurately paraphrased. See also State v. Garrett, 627 S.W.2d 635 (Mo. banc 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 906 (1982).

See also:

· State v. Lee, 486 S.W.2d 412 (Mo. 1972) (permitting prosecuting attorney to ask prospective jurors if they would automatically reject testimony of certain state witnesses if it is revealed that they made...