Hill v. State
Cop pat down the D and found c*caine inside of a Dominos box upon responding to a armed robbery call in. D was charged with a possession offense. D requested a voir dire question about racial biasness to the jurors, but the court refused to ask the question. D filed an appeal upon found guilty based on the voir question that was denied. Ct held that he was entitled to have the question asked to the venire regarding possible racial prejudice and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the request. The States only witness was a white cop;
o Hill cited Ham vs S.C. (pg 459)àBlack civil rights activist who wanted the jurors to be ask about bias against race and people with beards because his defense was that Police framed him because of his civil rights activities. Ct said that racial issues that were inextricably bound up with the conduct of the trial gave rise to the need to voir dire about racial biases to assure an impartial jury; per the Ristaino ruling.
o Reinquest put right to Voir Dire under Due Process Clause because it was not constitutionalo In applying Ristaino, this case was not inextricably bound with race issues and it was not decided correctly; this ct did not follow the guidance of the S.C.