Supreme Court has held that even though the jurors have the right to determine the law, they do not have the right to disregard it. Walden v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1182, 1184 (Ind.2008). Carter argues the prosecutor's discussion regarding a difference of laws between states was inappropriate because there is little difference in state laws regarding theft and robbery. The State argues the prosecutor was ensuring the jury understood their role to follow the law, regardless of their personal feelings We agree with the State, and characterize the dialogue in question to be for the purpose of determining whether the juror would be able to follow the law, regardless of personal feelings. Such an inquiry does not put Carter's right to a fair trial in jeopardy. See Hopkins, 429 N.E.2d at 635 (<HOLDING>). Carter also alleges prosecutorial misconduct
holding that rule 606b precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one jurors affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other jurors dishonesty during voir dire holding questions meant to expose jurors bias and tendencies permitted during voir dire holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice holding that the extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judges discretion