Cited by

Discussion “It is well established that due process requires that an accused must receive a trial by a fair and impartial jury.” State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 798 (1974); see Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 722 (1961).

Publicity about a case can result in two types of prejudice with regard to the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Once the trial court on voir dire has made a determination as to whether a prospective juror is free from prejudice, Addison, 161 N.H. at 303, it is then our duty on appeal to evaluate the voir dire testimony of the empanelled jury to determine whether an impartial jury was selected, State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800 (1974).

denied, 449 U.S. 879 (1980), and that on appeal we will “evaluate the voir dire testimony of the empaneled jury to determine whether an impartial jury was selected.” State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800 (1974), cert.

“It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside [her] impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800, 331 A.2d 354, 358 (1974).

Pretrial publicity, as we stated in State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 331 A.2d 354 (1974), cert.

It is then the duty of this court on appeal to evaluate the voir dire testimony of the empaneled jury to determine whether an impartial jury was selected.’” State v. Wellman, 128 N.H. 340, 348, 513 A.2d 944, 949 (1986) (quoting State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800, 331 A.2d 354, 358 (1974), cert.

State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 798, 331 A.2d 354, 357 (1974) (due process requires that accused receive a trial by fair and impartial jury), cert.

3-84 (1969) (issue on challenge for cause is not existence of fixed opinion against capital punishment but ability to follow instructions conscientiously and give fair consideration to choice of penalty); Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961) (qualification turns not on mere existence of preconceived notion as to guilt or innocence but on ability to render verdict on evidence); State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800, 331 A.2d 354, 358 (1974), cert.

State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. *653 794, 800, 331 A.2d 354, 358 (1974), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 854 (1975) (supreme court must evaluate juror’s voir dire testimony to determine propriety of trial court’s finding of impartiality).

It is then the duty of this court on appeal to evaluate the voir dire testimony of the empaneled jury to determine whether an impartial jury was selected.” State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800, 331 A.2d 354, 358 (1974), cert.

denied, 449 U.S. 879 (1980), and that this court on appeal “will evaluate the voir dire testimony of the empaneled jury to determine whether an impartial jury was selected.” State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800, 331 A.2d 354, 358 (1974), cert.

denied, 449 U.S. 879 (1980); State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800, 331 A.2d 354, 358-59, cert.

1, art. 17 (Supp. 1979); State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 799, 331 A.2d 354, 358 (1974), cert.

When the publicity does not result in inherent prejudice, allegations of adverse publicity are not enough.

State v. Stewart, 116 N.H. 585, 586-87, 364 A.2d 621, 622 (1976); see State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 798, 331 A.2d 354, 357 (1974), cert.

It is well settled that whether or not a prospective juror is free from prejudice is a finding to be made by the trial court on voir dire, and that this court reviews the record of the voir dire to determine the jury’s impartiality; State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 331 A.2d 354 (1974), cert.

State v. Stewart, 116 N.H. 585, 364 A.2d 621 (1976); State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 331 A.2d 354 (1974), cert.

However, there is no evidence in the record before *655 us that articles appearing in a magazine such as Esquire would be so widely read by people in Hillsborough County that it would be impossible to obtain a fair and impartial jury or that plaintiff’s right to a fair trial would otherwise be jeopardized.

The court’s refusal to ask the remaining four questions covering the same ground was an entirely proper exercise of its discretion.

The second is actual prejudice which exists when the publicity has infected the jurors to such an extent that the defendant cannot or has not received a fair and impartial jury trial.” State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 798, 331 A.2d 354, 357 (1974), cert.

State v. Comery, 78 N.H. 6, 12, 95 A. 670, 673 (1915); State v. Laaman, 114 N.H. 794, 800-01, 331 A.2d 354, 358-59 (1974).