People v. Digby

Defendant was convicted, after jury trial, of delivery of a controlled substance. Even though court did not follow the precise verbiage of Rule 431(b) for voir dire, the Rule does not dictate a particular methodology for establishing the venire's understanding or acceptance of basic principles set forth in Rule. Court's questions of whether venire "had a problem" with presumption of innocence, or "disagreed" with State's burden, or would hold Defendant's failure to testify "against" him, were sufficiently clear and appropriate. Court's asking for a show of hands to indicate their response is a commonly accepted method of eliciting response from a group, and provided sufficient opportunity for response. (MURPHY and STEELE, concurring.)