Opinion ID: 1266769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voir Dire Error

Text: Appellant asserts error based on the trial court's failure to strike for cause juror Jodi Fullen. While Appellant did remove Ms. Fullen from the panel through the use of one of his peremptory strikes, he nonetheless asserts error based on juror Fullen's statement during voir dire that she might be more likely to convict Appellant if she knew he had prior convictions for domestic violence offenses. Our review of the record demonstrates that the trial court continued to question juror Fullen until it was convinced that she could set aside any preconceived bias toward conviction and fairly assess the evidence presented against Appellant on the current charges. [17] This Court made clear in State v. Miller, 197 W.Va. 588, 476 S.E.2d 535 (1996) that [t]he trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to strike jurors for cause, and we will reverse only where actual prejudice is demonstrated.... The relevant test for determining whether a juror is biased is whether the juror [ ] ... had such fixed opinion that [he or she] could not judge impartially the guilt of the defendant. Id. at 605, 476 S.E.2d at 552 (citing Patton v. Yount, 467 U.S. 1025, 1035, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984) (citations omitted)). We find no abuse of discretion with the trial court's decision to permit Ms. Fullen to remain on the panel. Based on the foregoing, we affirm Appellant's conviction on the charge of wanton endangerment with a firearm; reverse Appellant's conviction on the charge of third offense domestic violence; and remand for entry of a new sentencing order on the domestic violence conviction consistent with the holdings of this opinion. Affirmed, in part; Reversed, in part; and Remanded with Directions.