State v. Grant, 2011 MT 81

Grant was convicted of aggravated assault in Hill County District Court (Nov. 24, 2009).
Appellant contends voir dire was curtailed, preventing an impartial jury.
The State planned to call two doctors to testify that Fitzhugh's injuries were protracted, a key element of serious bodily injury.
Defense counsel attempted juror-by-juror questioning on the meaning of 'protracted'; the court interrupted after six jurors.
The court limited further questioning, stating the definition would be addressed in deliberations and that many words would be defined for the jury.
Grant appeals on the sole ground that the curtailed voir dire violated his right to an impartial jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse discretion in curtailing juror-by-juror inquiry on 'protracted'?	Grant argues curtailed voir dire deprived him of bias exposure.	State contends limits were reasonable to expedite trial and 'protracted' is readily understood.	No abuse; limits were within discretion and did not deny impartial jury.

State v. LaMere, 190 Mont. 332, 621 P.2d 462 (Mont. 1980) (court grants trial court broad discretion to control voir dire)
State v. Trull, 2006 MT 119, 332 Mont. 233, 136 P.3d 551 (Mont. 2006) ('protracted' is a readily understandable term)
State v. Nye, 283 Mont. 505, 943 P.2d 96 (Mont. 1997) (definition of terms in elements of offense; trial court discretion)