State v. Mick Grant
Annotate this CaseIn November, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellee Mick Grant was convicted of felonious aggravated assault. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court's limiting voir dire prevented him from obtaining an impartial jury, and seeks reversal of his conviction. A key issue in the State's case for aggravated assault against Appellant was whether the victim's injuries could be considered "protracted." "Protracted" is part of the definition of "serious bodily injury" applicable in this case. The State planned on calling two doctors as expert witnessed to testify to the "protracted impairment" caused by the victim's injuries. During voir dire, Appellant's counsel sought to explore the juror's concepts of the word "protracted," which he alleged was necessary to evaluate potential juror bias as to the doctors' testimony. After questioning potential jurors in succession, the trial judge interjected during the examination, cutting it short. Over objection from counsel, the court did not modify its directive. The eventual jury convicted Appellant of aggravated assault. Appellant's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court's actions in cutting short his counsel's juror-by-juror inquiry of their understanding of "protracted" deprived him of a right to an impartial jury. On review, the Supreme Court noted its duty in balancing Appellant's "essential right to an impartial jury with the broad discretion a trial court has to oversee the administration of trial." The Court held that it was within the trial court's discretion to limit counsel's insistent focus on one word in the statutory elements of the offense and affirmed the lower court's decision.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.