Opinion ID: 1713763
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Juror Vandeventer

Text: Appellant argues that the trial court improperly excused juror Vandeventer for cause based on his anti-death penalty views. When asked if he could follow the court's instructions and recommend a sentence of death, Mr. Vandeventer stated that he guessed he could. Thus, appellant maintains that juror Vandeventer indicated his ability to follow the law and court's instruction and, therefore, he should not have been excused for cause. We disagree. The test for determining juror incompetency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court. Kearse v. State, 770 So.2d 1119, 1128 (Fla.2000) (citing Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1984)). Under this test, a trial court must excuse a juror for cause if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether the juror possesses an impartial state of mind. See id.; see also Singer v. State, 109 So.2d 7, 23-24 (Fla.1959) ([I]f there is basis for any reasonable doubt as to any juror's possessing that state of mind which will enable him to render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence submitted and the law announced at the trial he should be excused for cause on motion of a party, or by the court on its own motion.). Here, when juror Vandeventer was asked by the court if he could under any circumstances recommend a sentence of death, he responded that he could not. Later, Mr. Vandeventer was asked a series of questions about his views. In response to these questions, Mr. Vandeventer told the court that he previously favored the death penalty, but that he had recently changed his views for religious reasons. He also had recently experienced health problems which altered his view on the death penalty. When asked by counsel for Parker whether he would be able to follow the judge's instructions on the law in making a recommendation, Mr. Vandeventer responded, I guess so. I'm kind of unclear about that. Parker's attorney did not attempt to clarify Vandeventer's response and did not ask him any further questions. Rimmer's attorney did not ask any questions. The prosecutor then asked Mr. Vandeventer that given his recent change in view due to his religious beliefs, is it true that he could not make a death recommendation in any case. Vandeventer responded, I think so. Following this discussion, the State moved to strike Vandeventer for cause. The court agreed and granted the challenge for cause. The court stated that it had reasonable doubt as to whether or not Mr. Vandeventer can follow the law in the penalty phase. In so ruling, the court compared Vandeventer's responses to those of another juror who clearly and convincingly asserted that he could follow the law despite his personal views. Based on the responses that Vandeventer gave upon being questioned about his personal views on the death penalty, we find no error with the trial court's decision to excuse him for cause.