People v. Boulware
272 N.E.2d 538, 29 N.Y.2d 135, 324 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has broad discretion to control the scope of voir dire and does not abuse that discretion by prohibiting counsel from questioning prospective jurors about their attitudes or knowledge of specific legal principles.
Facts:
- In August 1967, the defendant, Boulware, was using a knife on a beer can and accidentally cut David Richardson's hand.
- In response, Richardson challenged Boulware to a fight and won; during the scuffle, Boulware's pockets were emptied, and he accused Richardson of stealing $160.
- Later that evening, Boulware and Richardson were in a tavern where Boulware again accused Richardson of theft, leading to Boulware being asked to leave.
- Richardson followed Boulware outside, where a second fight ensued.
- During this second fight, five eyewitnesses saw Boulware draw a knife and fatally stab Richardson, who was attempting to defend himself with a garbage can cover.
- Boulware fled the scene but was pursued by Richard Carroll, a friend of the victim.
- When Carroll attacked Boulware with a broom handle, Boulware slashed him with the knife.
- Boulware then proceeded to a hospital for his own injuries, where he was subsequently apprehended by police.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Boulware, was indicted for murder in the second degree and assault in the first degree.
- Following a jury trial in the state trial court, Boulware was convicted of the lesser included offenses of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the second degree.
- Boulware, as appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Division.
- Because the voir dire was not transcribed, the Appellate Division ordered a hearing before a Special Referee to create a factual record of what occurred during jury selection.
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction.
- Boulware, as appellant, now appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Division to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion and commit a reversible error by refusing to permit defense counsel to question prospective jurors during voir dire about their knowledge or attitudes regarding principles of law such as the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof?
Opinions:
Majority - Scileppi, J.
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by precluding counsel from questioning prospective jurors about their knowledge of legal principles. The role of the jury is to resolve factual issues, not to interpret the law. Jurors are bound to follow the instructions on the law as given by the court, and it must be presumed that the court's instructions will be adequate. Therefore, a prospective juror's pre-existing knowledge or personal attitude regarding a rule of law is irrelevant to their qualifications and function. While counsel may not probe jurors on legal matters, it is permissible to ask if they would be able to follow the court's instructions. The record indicates counsel did not attempt this permissible line of questioning, so the trial court's restriction was proper.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the trial court's significant authority in managing the jury selection process, particularly by limiting the scope of voir dire. It draws a sharp distinction between the roles of the judge (arbiter of law) and the jury (finder of fact), preventing attorneys from using voir dire to pre-instruct or condition the jury on legal theories. The ruling clarifies the boundary between impermissible questioning on legal knowledge and permissible inquiries into a juror's willingness to follow judicial instructions. This precedent prioritizes judicial efficiency and prevents voir dire from becoming a mini-trial on legal doctrines, impacting how attorneys must frame their questions to assess juror impartiality.
