Opinion ID: 2428106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: denial of motion to strike for cause

Text: Foster next alleges error occurred when the trial court refused her motion to strike for cause veniremen Bernie Short and Kevin McCarty. Although neither venireman sat on the fourteen member jury, Appellant Foster had to use all of her peremptory challenges. For there to be error, she has the burden of showing that her use of a peremptory challenge to strike each venireman resulted in a subsequent inability to challenge additional unacceptable veniremen. Marsch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 743 S.W.2d 830 (1988); Rigsby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 495 S.W.2d 795 (1973), overruled on other grounds, Pendleton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 685 S.W.2d 549, 552 (1985). Appellant also has the burden of proving bias and preconceived ideas as to these challenged jurors. Caldwell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 634 S.W.2d 405 (1982). Our review of the Short and McCarty voir dire gives rise to very little, if any, doubt of their ability to serve on the jury. Initially, both prospective jurors had formed opinions of guilt and punishment, stating that they believed appellant was guilty and that capital punishment and the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for the crime. But upon further questioning by the trial court, it was determined that these opinions were not strongly held. Mr. Short, when asked by the trial court whether he could lay aside his opinion and render a verdict based upon the evidence, replied that since being summoned for jury duty, he had a new perspective. He said, We're talking about being a side-line quarterback. It's a little different being on the side than being in the game. It puts a little different slant on it. McCarty, when asked the same question, stated that [g]oing into Tuesday [when voir dire started], probably so, but as to what you [Judge Keller] said as far as the facts and knowing the facts, I really couldn't make that conclusion right now. When the entire range of penalties permissible was explained, both veniremen stated that the facts and circumstances of the case would dictate what form of punishment would be appropriate. The trial judge made a finding in both cases that Short and McCarty could put aside any opinions and could consider the whole range of penalties. Based on the trial court's thorough examination of the two veniremen, we cannot say that its decision to overrule Foster's motion to strike for cause was clearly erroneous. Caldwell, supra . The use of a peremptory challenge to strike each venireman did not result in a subsequent inability to challenge additional unacceptable veniremen. Rigsby, supra , overruled on other grounds, Pendleton, supra . The trial court did not abuse its discretion. Peters, supra . Error, if any, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, when viewed from the overwhelming evidence of guilt against the appellants. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); RCr 9.24; Snodgrass v. Commonwealth, Ky., 814 S.W.2d 579 (1991); Abernathy v. Commonwealth, Ky., 439 S.W.2d 949 (1969).