Filmore v. State
813 A.2d 1112, 2003 Del. LEXIS 6, 2003 WL 60485 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution mandates that a trial judge must question prospective jurors about racial prejudice during voir dire when a defendant is accused of a violent crime, the defendant and victim are members of different racial groups, and defense counsel specifically requests such questioning; however, the trial judge has discretion in formulating questions regarding a defendant's right not to testify if the matter is adequately covered in final jury instructions.
Facts:
- On November 21, 2000, Keith C. Filmore entered a convenience store in Cheswold, Delaware, and asked the manager if he could use the store telephone.
- The manager directed Filmore to an outside pay phone, but he repeatedly entered and left the store, asking customers for rides and causing a disruption using foul language.
- Filmore informed the manager he wanted to find the bus station and asked her to find a telephone number for it, but he did not seem to know which bus station he wanted.
- Filmore then picked up a phone book, cursed at the manager, and threw it at her, striking her on the side of her face.
- After throwing the telephone book, Filmore ran out of the store.
- Two Delaware State Police officers responded to the manager’s complaint and testified that the manager had a red mark on her face.
- The police officers later apprehended and arrested Filmore.
- The alleged victims of the offense were White Females, and Keith C. Filmore is a Black Male.
Procedural Posture:
- In October 2001, a Superior Court jury convicted Appellant Keith C. Filmore of Assault in the Third Degree and Disorderly Conduct.
- Before jury selection, Filmore’s counsel filed a written motion requesting five special voir dire questions, including one inquiring about racial prejudice and another about the defendant's right not to testify.
- The State objected to Filmore's proposed voir dire questions.
- The trial judge refused to put the requested questions to the jury venire.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution require a trial judge to question prospective jurors about racial prejudice during voir dire when a defendant is accused of a violent crime, the defendant and victim are members of different racial groups, and defense counsel specifically requests such questioning? 2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by refusing to ask a voir dire question regarding prospective jurors' potential bias if the defendant exercised his constitutional right not to testify, given that the issue would be covered in final jury instructions?
Opinions:
Majority - STEELE, Justice
Yes, the Delaware Constitution requires a trial judge to question prospective jurors about racial prejudice under specific circumstances; however, no, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to ask about potential bias related to a defendant's right not to testify when other instructions would cover it. Authored by Justice Steele, the majority reversed Filmore's conviction regarding the racial bias voir dire question. The Court found the trial judge's refusal to ask about racial prejudice unfairly prejudiced Filmore, violating Article I, Section 7 of the Delaware Constitution. Citing Feddiman v. State, the Court established a "bright-line rule" mandating such questioning when (1) the defendant is accused of a violent crime, (2) the defendant and victim are members of different racial groups, and (3) defense counsel specifically requests it. This standard is more stringent than the federal requirement under Ristaino v. Ross, which only mandates such questions under "special circumstances" that make racial issues "inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial." The Court explicitly stated that broad, general bias questions are insufficient in cases with inter-racial violent crime, as race is inherently "injected" by the factual circumstances. Regarding the question about Filmore's right not to testify, the majority affirmed the trial judge's decision. Citing Jacobs v. State, the Court reiterated that voir dire's sole purpose is to determine juror impartiality, not to argue the case or indoctrinate the jury. Since the trial judge intended to cover the presumption of innocence and the defendant's right to remain silent in preliminary and final jury instructions, the specific voir dire question was deemed unnecessary and within the trial judge's discretion. The Court found no abuse of discretion as the matter was adequately addressed elsewhere.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the procedural protections against racial bias in jury selection within Delaware, establishing a "bright-line rule" that expands upon federal constitutional requirements. It clarifies the "essential demands of fairness" under the Delaware Constitution, mandating specific voir dire questioning for racial prejudice in cases involving violent interracial crimes where requested by defense. This ruling could lead to more robust voir dire in similar cases, ensuring a more impartial jury, but does not extend this stringent standard to other potential biases, such as those related to a defendant's right not to testify, leaving those largely to the trial court's discretion and final jury instructions. The case distinguishes between the voir dire process for racial bias and other instructions.
