answers given created a situation that was so fundamentally unfair as to constitute a denial of due process of law. Nor do we believe that the situation constituted a denial of Young's right to trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
An examination of the relevant portions of the voir dire transcript shows that, of the forty-one incidents testified to in the presence of the panel, there were four wallet or purse thefts, thirteen apartment or house burglaries, seven automobile thefts, twelve automobile property thefts, three muggings and two robberies, none of which involved the use of firearms.
Taking into account that the responses covered a wide variety of individuals, including both panel members and members of their families, which the Court defined as brothers, sisters, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents and unrelated persons living in their households,
and that the incidents occurred as far back as twenty-two years ago, the total number of incidents does not appear to be inordinately high. More importantly, almost 90% of the incidents were not crimes of violence as in the instant case, but were crimes involving the taking of property. For the most part, only insubstantial amounts of property were involved. Finally, the Court specifically asked the jury panel whether, despite the fact that either they or their relatives had been victims of a crime, they could render a fair and just verdict based solely on the evidence, and only after having heard all the evidence, the summations of counsel and the instructions of the Court.
No one responded negatively.
In light of all the above, we cannot say that, as a result of hearing the incidents, the requisite impartiality of the panel members was destroyed. Accordingly, the motion for new trial will be denied.