Summary
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed Ruby Perea’s judgments of sentence for three convictions involving the sale of heroin. The court held that issues not raised in the trial court or post-verdict motions were waived and upheld the trial court’s limitation of voir dire questions concerning jurors’ consideration of the evidence and reasonable doubt. A concurrence criticized the trial court’s reasonable-doubt instruction but agreed that the issue was not properly before the appellate court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court improperly restricted defense counsel's voir dire questions concerning jurors' willingness to independently evaluate the evidence and return a not-guilty verdict upon reasonable doubt.
- Whether the appellate court could consider challenges to the initiation of the prosecutions, the authority of Pennsylvania Bureau of Drug Control agents, and the trial judge's conduct when those issues were not raised below or in post-verdict motions.
Holdings
- Issues not raised in the trial court or in post-verdict motions are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
- The trial court did not commit palpable error by refusing to permit defense counsel to ask prospective jurors questions that addressed subjects properly covered by the court's jury instructions rather than juror qualifications, bias, or disqualification for cause.
Key quotations
“There is no question that the examination of a juror under voir dire is solely for the purpose of securing a competent, fair, impartial and unprejudiced jury.” (252 Pa. Super. at 276)
“It is well settled that the scope of a voir dire examination rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and his decisions should not be reversed except in the case of palpable error.” (252 Pa. Super. at 277)
“We find no error in the trial court's refusing to allow defense counsel to ask questions in the voir dire examination which questions covered subject matter falling within the province of the court to address in its instructions to the jury.” (252 Pa. Super. at 277)
Factual background
Ruby Perea was convicted by a jury of three counts of selling heroin. During voir dire, defense counsel sought to ask prospective jurors individually whether they would independently evaluate the evidence and whether they could return a not-guilty verdict if they had a reasonable doubt. The trial judge refused those questions because they concerned matters to be addressed in jury instructions, and the court subsequently gave instructions concerning the jury's fact-finding role, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and reasonable doubt.
Procedural history
Perea was convicted by a jury on September 11, 1975. The trial court denied timely post-verdict motions after argument on November 6, 1975, and sentenced her on December 18, 1975, to two to ten years' imprisonment on one count and costs on the other two counts. On appeal, the Superior Court held that the remaining issues were waived because they had not been raised below or in post-verdict motions, and affirmed the judgments of sentence.