[¶ 1] Jeffrey W. Roby appeals from a judgment of conviction for domestic violence assault (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 207-A(l)(A) (2016), entered by the trial court (Sagadahoc County, Billings, J.) after a jury trial. He argues that the court abused its discretion by not presenting his proposed voir dire questions to the jury pool. We affirm the judgment.
[¶2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State as the prevailing party, the jury could rationally have found the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Simons,
[¶ 3] The court held jury selection on December 2, 2016. On that same date,
1. If a person is arrested for a crime, it is likely they [sic] are guilty. (Please circle one)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
2. A person accused of a crime should be required to present at least some evidence to prove their [sic ] innocence. (Please circle one)
Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree
[¶4] After discussing Roby’s proposed questionnaire with trial counsel, the court declined to use it but, over the objection of the prosecutor, agreed to use a revised version of Roby’s questionnaire as part of the jury selection process. The court began jury selection by ordering each member of the pool to complete a confidential questionnaire that asked about his or her experience with domestic violence. After excusing from the pool any individual who answered “yes” to a “disqualifying question” on the questionnaire, the court addressed the remaining members of the jury pool in, open court. The court began this portion' of the selection process by explaining some of the “responsibilities of jurors and some of the laws, rights and rules that apply to jury service and apply to criminal cases.”
[¶ 5] After completing this instruction, the court ordered the members of the jury pool to complete the revised questionnaire, which contained six questions concerning the topics addressed by the court in its preliminary remarks. The record contains no information about the results generated by that questionnaire, except that the court excused sixteen members of the jury pool “based upon the answers.”
[¶6] Next, before any additional questioning occurred, the State challenged multiple jurors for cause, pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 24(b), due to their respective criminal records. Roby objected to only two of the State’s challenges and the court granted all the State’s requests to strike particular individuals from the panel.
[¶ 7] The court then continued with “routine” voir dire questions that allowed Roby and the State to determine whether
[¶ 8] Thereafter, the State reported that it had no additional challenges for cause. M.R.U. Crim. P. 24(b). Roby made two challenges for cause. The court granted one, and denied the other. After that portion of the process, the court asked both attorneys whether they were “satisfied with proceeding with the folks on this, list.” Both attorneys answered affirmatively.
[¶ 9] Ultimately, the voir dire' yielded twelve’ jurors and two alternates. Roby told the court that the impaneled jury was acceptable to him. On December 22, 2016, the court held a jury trial, and the jury returned a guilty verdict. Roby appeals from the resulting judgment of conviction. See M.R. App. 2(b) (Tower 2016); 15 M.R.S. § 2115. (2016).
[¶ 10] Roby argues that the court’s rejection of his first proposed questionnaire denied him the right to a fair and impartial jury. See Me. Const. art. I, § 6; State v. Libby,
[¶ 11] “We review challenges to the court’s conduct of voir dire for abuse of discretion.” State v. Lowry,
[¶ 12] In order to select a qualified and impartial jury, the trial court has “[considerable discretion over the conduct and scope of juror voir dire,” because it is the trial court that “has the responsibility of balancing the competing considerations of fairness to the defendant, judicial economy, and avoidance of embarrassment to potential jurors.” State v. Woodburn,
[¶ 13] We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in its orchestration of voir dire. Simons,
[¶ 14] The court acted well within its discretion in declining to use a questionnaire
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed,.
Notes
. We reject Roby’s argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish each element of domestic violence assault beyond a reasonable doubt. Roby’s alternative explanation of the evidence — that a donkey caused the injury — is not "sufficiently credible in light of the entire record that it necessarily raises a reasonable doubt” as to his guilt. State v. Woodard,
. To avoid the kind of last minute decisions that occurred here, all requests for specific voir dire questions or methods should be submitted well in advance of the date for jury selection, so that the court and counsel have adequate time to identify and address any specific bias and prejudice concerns in a manner that avoids misleading or inappropriate questions that could confuse prospective jurors. See State v. Simons,