Tyrone Jerrard Simmons v. Commonwealth of Virginia
63 Va. App. 69
Va. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Tyrone Jerrard Simmons was convicted by a jury of driving under the influence (Code § 18.2-266) and appealed the denial of his motions to strike three jurors for cause.
- During voir dire the court and counsel questioned venire about whether jurors had preformed opinions and whether their personal views about drinking and driving would affect their ability to follow the law. No juror initially indicated a firm inability to follow the law.
- Defense counsel asked whether jurors thought it was improper to drive after drinking; many answered affirmatively, and three jurors (G, F, and C) expressed blanket views that one should not drive after drinking.
- The trial court repeatedly explained the distinction between a juror’s personal code of conduct (what is advisable) and the legal standard the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors affirmed they understood and would follow the court’s instructions.
- Defendant moved to strike jurors G, F, and C for cause based on their stated blanket beliefs; the trial court denied the motion, concluding the jurors would follow the law and render a verdict based on evidence and instructions.
- On appeal, defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion by not striking those jurors; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no manifest error and deferring to the trial court’s assessment of voir dire responses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jurors who state a personal belief that one should not drive after drinking must be struck for cause | Simmons: the jurors held a blanket belief that drinking+driving is improper and would convict on proof of drinking and driving | Commonwealth: jurors expressed personal views but affirmed they would follow court instructions and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt | Court: Denial of strike affirmed — jurors said they would follow law; no showing they would convict solely for drinking |
| Standard of review for challenge to denial of cause strike | Simmons: trial court misapplied the law in failing to strike biased jurors | Commonwealth: trial court’s credibility determinations control; review is deferential abuse-of-discretion | Court: review deferential; no abuse of discretion found |
| Scope of voir dire to assess juror impartiality | Simmons: isolated juror statements show prejudice | Commonwealth: must consider entire voir dire and jurors’ assurances | Court: consider entire voir dire; statements, context, and court’s clarifying questions show impartiality |
| Preservation of appellate arguments about judge’s voir dire role | Simmons: trial judge rehabilitated jurors and influenced answers | Commonwealth: objection not made at trial; issue not assigned on appeal | Court: argument waived under Rule 5A:18 and assignment-of-error rules; not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Swanson v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 182 (recognizing jury impartiality guarantee)
- Breeden v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 297 (trial jurors must stand indifferent; resolve doubt for accused)
- Vinson v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 459 (consider entire voir dire, not isolated statements)
- Garcia v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 262 (deference to trial court’s ability to observe juror demeanor)
- Barrett v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 823 (denial of cause strike reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Farnsworth v. Commonwealth, 43 Va. App. 490 (Rule 5A:18 requires preservation of appellate issues)