State v. Roby, 171 A.3d 1157

On July 25, 2016, Jeffrey W. Roby allegedly stomped on his partner’s bare foot; she called 9-1-1 and Roby was arrested and charged with domestic violence assault (Class D).
Roby pleaded not guilty; jury selection occurred December 2, 2016, and trial concluded December 22, 2016, with a guilty verdict and judgment of conviction.
Roby submitted a proposed juror questionnaire containing statements of law that were legally incorrect (e.g., suggesting arrest implies likely guilt; accused must present evidence of innocence).
The trial court declined to use Roby’s original questionnaire, adopted a revised questionnaire addressing domestic-violence experience, and conducted oral voir dire covering juror relationships, fairness, and law-enforcement contacts; both parties accepted the panel.
Roby appealed solely arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing his proposed voir dire questions; the court affirmed, also rejecting Roby’s sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Roby)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing Roby’s proposed voir dire questionnaire that posed incorrect statements of law	Refusal denied his right to a fair and impartial jury; the questions were the best means to reveal juror bias	Court had discretion; proposed questions were legally incorrect and could mislead jurors; the court’s alternative voir dire adequately probed bias	No abuse of discretion. Court properly refused misleading legal questions and ensured voir dire sufficiently probed bias; judgment affirmed
Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict	Argues alternative explanation (a donkey caused the injury) raises reasonable doubt	State points to victim’s testimony, bruise, and circumstances supporting assault; alternative not credible	Evidence sufficient. Alternative explanation not credible; conviction affirmed

State v. Simons, 169 A.3d 399 (Me. 2017) (trial courts should not ask jurors to adopt positions on law before instructions; courts control voir dire scope)
State v. Lowry, 819 A.2d 331 (Me. 2003) (purpose of voir dire is to detect juror bias; review for abuse of discretion)
State v. Collin, 741 A.2d 1074 (Me. 1999) (trial court not required to conduct voir dire exactly as requested)
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 position are improper)
State v. Woodburn, 559 A.2d 343 (Me. 1989) (trial court has considerable discretion over conduct and scope of voir dire)
State v. Libby, 485 A.2d 627 (Me. 1984) (defendant’s right to a fair and impartial jury under state constitution)