State v. Leo T. Little, Jr. (084115) (Camden County & Statewide), 251 A.3d 360

Defendant Leo T. Little Jr. was a passenger in a car that sideswiped a parked taxi; witnesses said he left and returned with a handgun, pointed it, and ordered the victims away. Police saw him run and drop an object; an unidentified woman retrieved it and no weapon was recovered. Defendant was later indicted on assault and weapons charges.
Before trial, the State asked the court to voir dire jurors about whether the absence of the gun would affect their ability to be fair. Defense objected that the proposed question was advocacy.
The trial court modified and asked prospective jurors two versions of a question (first and then a clarified version) stating the law does not require the State to produce the gun and asking whether that would affect their ability to serve.
Several prospective jurors said the missing gun would affect them; the State exercised peremptory strikes against those jurors. The seated jury convicted defendant on all counts and he was sentenced.
The Appellate Division reversed, finding the voir dire questions indoctrinated jurors in favor of conviction and that the State’s peremptory strikes may have produced a biased jury. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification, affirmed the reversal (as modified), and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Little)	Held
Whether the trial court permissibly asked jurors about the State’s inability to produce the weapon	Question was a permissible, context-specific inquiry to determine if jurors could follow instructions; it simply stated the legal rule that a gun need not be produced	The questions impermissibly indoctrinated jurors to ignore the absence of the gun and confused/provoked biased responses	Voir dire about missing evidence can be proper, but must be neutral; these questions were framed in a way that favored the State and risked indoctrination, so improper
Whether the improper voir dire and subsequent peremptory strikes required a new trial	The court and prosecutor acted in good faith; peremptory strikes were proper and do not alone show bias among the sworn jurors	The questioning and strikes together may have produced a jury predisposed to convict despite missing weapon evidence, undermining impartiality	Court agreed with Appellate Division: voir dire jeopardized trial fairness and defendant is entitled to a new trial

State v. Manley, 54 N.J. 259 (established limits on voir dire indoctrination; prompted Rule 1:8-3)
State v. Moore, 122 N.J. 420 (voir dire is a discovery conversation; probing bias is permissible without manipulation)
State v. Fortin, 178 N.J. 540 (clarified Manley: courts may thoroughly probe juror attitudes so long as questions do not indoctrinate)
State v. Winder, 200 N.J. 231 (deferential review of trial court’s voir dire; reversal only for error undermining jury impartiality)
State v. Biegenwald, 106 N.J. 13 (trial court must reject or reformulate proposed voir dire questions that cross into advocacy)
State v. Erazo, 126 N.J. 112 (endorses probing juror biases that would impede fair decisionmaking)