Background
Gilbert police executed a search warrant at a house on November 14, 2024. As occupants exited, Justin Wade Cloud moved from the backyard toward the front, ran toward a neighboring wall, and attempted to climb it. Officers used less-than-lethal rounds, after which Cloud surrendered. An officer testified it appeared Cloud had thrown something over the wall; police found methamphetamine in a clear plastic bag in the neighboring yard.
The State charged Cloud with possession or use of a dangerous drug and drug paraphernalia. The paraphernalia count was dismissed before trial. During jury selection, the court and parties reviewed written questionnaires, excused some prospective jurors, and later conducted oral voir dire. Over Cloud’s objection, the court excused Juror 11 based on the juror’s questionnaire response that judging others would be difficult. A jury convicted Cloud of the drug charge, and the superior court imposed a mitigated one-year prison term.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the superior court conducted the oral voir dire required by Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.5. Unlike the trial court in State v. Lucas, which had relied exclusively on written questionnaires and denied counsel an opportunity for oral questioning, this court orally questioned prospective jurors and allowed both parties to do so.
The court also held that excusing Juror 11 before oral voir dire did not warrant reversal. Lucas permits courts to use written questionnaires to winnow prospective jurors, and Cloud did not show that Juror 11’s exclusion resulted in an unfair or partial jury.
Cloud likewise failed to establish inadequate voir dire or juror bias. He did not identify questions he should have been allowed to ask, did not question Juror 12 about the questionnaire response concerning the nature of the case, and did not object when Juror 12 was seated. Reviewing the unobjected-to issue for fundamental error, the court found no basis to conclude Juror 12 was biased or that Cloud lacked a fair and impartial jury.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 18.5 requires oral voir dire, but it does not require oral questioning of every prospective juror.
- Written questionnaires may be used to remove prospective jurors before oral voir dire.
- A defendant challenging voir dire must show both inadequate questioning and that the resulting jury was not fair and impartial.
Why It Matters
This nonprecedential decision distinguishes a questionnaire-only jury-selection process from one that includes meaningful oral questioning by the court and counsel. It also underscores that counsel should use available voir dire opportunities and timely object to a juror’s seating when asserting potential bias.