Opinion ID: 1262473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: John Lutley

Text: Eaton's counsel asked venireman John Lutley numerous, lengthy questions regarding a defendant's presumption of innocence and a defendant's option not to take the stand in his own defense. Initially, Lutley voiced concern about Eaton's not taking the stand. However, when asked: You will listen to the evidence and fairly consider that along with the instructions? Lutley responded: Yes, and I understand that the case has to be made by the prosecution, not by the defense, I understand that. Over Eaton's objection, Lutley was seated on the jury. Eaton contends that Lutley was confused about the presumption of innocence and, therefore, unqualified to sit on the jury. [4] We disagree. Taking Lutley's voir dire as a whole, see Pruett, 232 Va. at 281, 351 S.E.2d at 10, the record indicates that Lutley understood the presumption of innocence. With regard to Lutley's potential desire that the defendant take the stand, the trial court found that he could disabuse [his] mind of [his] natural curiosity and decide the case on the evidence submitted and the law as propounded in the court's instructions. See Townes v. Commonwealth, 234 Va. 307, 329, 362 S.E.2d 650, 662 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 971, 108 S.Ct. 1249, 99 L.Ed.2d 447 (1988). We find no manifest error in the trial court's retention of juror Lutley.