State v. Roby, 171 A.3d 1157

Defendant Jeffrey W. Roby was charged with Class D domestic violence assault after stomping on his partner’s bare foot, causing bruising; he pleaded not guilty and was tried by jury.
On the day of jury selection Roby submitted a proposed questionnaire including items that stated incorrect legal propositions (e.g., arrest implies guilt; accused must present evidence of innocence).
The trial court declined to use Roby’s original questionnaire, but used a revised questionnaire and conducted oral voir dire covering jurors’ experience with domestic violence, relationships to parties/witnesses, and ability to be impartial.
The court excused jurors based on questionnaire answers and granted most of the State’s for-cause challenges; counsel confirmed they were satisfied with the panel and the empaneled jury was acceptable to Roby.
After trial the jury convicted Roby; on appeal he argued the court abused its discretion by refusing his proposed voir dire questions and thereby denied his right to a fair and impartial jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing Roby’s proposed voir dire questionnaire	Roby: his proposed questions were necessary to detect juror bias and ensure impartiality	State/Court: the questions contained incorrect statements of law and risked misleading jurors; court’s voir dire adequately probed bias	Court: No abuse of discretion; voir dire sufficient to reveal bias and declined questions that would improperly instruct jurors on law
Whether the evidence was insufficient to support conviction	Roby: alternative explanation (a donkey caused the injury) created reasonable doubt	State: evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: Evidence sufficient; alternative explanation not credible

State v. Simons, 169 A.3d 399 (Me. 2017) (voir dire questions must not adopt legal positions or misstate law; improper to ask jurors to adopt legal positions before instructions)
State v. Lowry, 819 A.2d 331 (Me. 2003) (standard of review for voir dire is abuse of discretion; purpose is to detect juror bias)
State v. Collin, 741 A.2d 1074 (Me. 1999) (trial court not required to conduct voir dire in exact manner requested by party)
Grover v. Boise Cascade Corp., 860 A.2d 851 (Me. 2004) (voir dire questions unrelated to juror bias or intended to advocate a party’s factual position are improper)
State v. Woodburn, 559 A.2d 343 (Me. 1989) (trial court has broad discretion over scope and conduct of voir dire to balance fairness and judicial economy)
State v. Woodard, 68 A.3d 1250 (Me. 2013) (test for sufficiency of evidence and evaluation of alternate explanations)
State v. Bruzzese, 974 A.2d 311 (Me. 2009) (credibility of alternate theories must be sufficiently credible to raise reasonable doubt)