Opinion ID: 1119833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 25

Heading: whether the jury was properly selected

Text: Defendant objected to the practice of transporting the jurors from Boise to Idaho Falls for the trial. He asserted that there were at least four jurors who were excused solely because it was inconvenient for them to have to travel to Idaho Falls, and that they would have been able to serve if the trial had been held in Boise. Defense counsel voiced this objection and listed the jurors who fell into this category. One juror had three small children and her husband was away from home, another was a sole proprietor and could not leave his business, the third had a husband who had just undergone surgery, and the fourth was planning a move out of state. The trial court addressed this argument as to each juror and concluded that, all four of those would have been excused regardless of where we hold the jury trial. We accept the trial court's decision and do not find there to be an abuse of discretion. Appellant also assigns error to the exclusion of two potential jurors. One of them, Michael Krubsack, was passed for cause by both sides. The next day he requested an opportunity to speak to the court again, and said that he and his family were planning a move out of state and that having to go to Idaho Falls for the trial would pose an extreme hardship. The finding of the court was that Krubsack had a state of mind and a personal situation which would have prevented his attention from being substantially devoted to this proceeding as contemplated in I.C. § 19-2019. He was excused. The other, Michael Landry, was excused for various reasons. The court found that he would be a disruptive juror and would not act with impartiality. His father was in prison for murdering several members of his family, and this left Landry with some strong opinions in favor of the death penalty. Landry advocated public stoning, charging 50 cents per rock, and according to the court, exhibited behavior, attitudes and, state of mind which was not conducive to serving as a juror considering the serious nature of the charges. We find no abuse of discretion in these findings of the court.