People v. Prince

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District · 2024 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawJury selectionVoir direPeremptory challengesImpartial juryvoir direperemptory challengeback-striking

Facts

Before voir dire, the trial court told defendant only that he had seven peremptory challenges and did not explain its jury-selection procedure, what would count as acceptance of a juror or panel, or the distinction between peremptory and for-cause challenges. During selection of the second panel, defendant declined to question venireperson 41, the State then questioned her, and she disclosed domestic-violence experiences and stated that those experiences might cause her to be biased and that she could not really say they would not. After the State accepted the panel, defendant immediately sought to excuse venireperson 41, but the court refused, saying he had already accepted the panel, even though he had never expressly done so. Venireperson 41 was seated on the jury, defendant was convicted, and his posttrial motion specifically challenged the court's refusal to allow him to strike juror 41.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion, and denied defendant his constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury, by conducting voir dire without adequate notice of its empaneling procedure and by refusing defendant's attempted peremptory challenge after a venireperson revealed bias during the State's questioning. The court also considered whether defendant preserved that challenge as to venireperson 41.

Rule

A trial court may alter the traditional jury-empaneling procedure only if both parties have adequate notice of the system to be used and the method chosen does not unduly restrict the use of challenges. A procedural limitation on peremptory challenges does not deny or impair that right only if it gives both parties a fair opportunity to detect juror bias or hostility and a fair chance to peremptorily excuse the venireperson; when a juror reveals that bias might prevent impartiality, the juror should be excused, and denial or impairment of the peremptory right is reversible error without a showing of prejudice.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a felony assault trial in Peoria, the judge tells both sides only that each has seven peremptory challenges. During voir dire, the judge silently treats defense counsel's decision not to question a replacement veniremember as final acceptance, even though the prosecutor questions that veniremember afterward and the veniremember then reveals a possible bias. When the defense immediately tries to use a peremptory strike, the judge refuses, saying the juror was already accepted.

On appeal, what is the strongest argument that the defendant is entitled to a new trial?

Explanation. A court may modify the traditional empaneling process only if both parties have adequate notice of the system to be used and the method does not unduly restrict challenges. A procedural limit is permissible only if it still gives both sides a fair opportunity to detect bias and a fair chance to peremptorily excuse the veniremember. Here, the unexplained procedure foreclosed the strike only after bias emerged during the prosecutor's questioning, so the peremptory right was impaired. Under the majority's rule, that impairment is reversible without a separate showing of prejudice. (Derived from People v. Prince (n.d.).)