Opinion ID: 2569354
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juror Fry

Text: Juror Fry was challenged for cause by the defendant based on his inability to sentence fairly. The trial court denied the challenge, and Harlan eventually exercised his eighth peremptory challenge to remove Fry. Fry's sentencing voir dire is reproduced below; it fairly represents the kind of contradictory and equivocal statements elicited by both counsel from many jurors. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. And I believe in your questionnaire you wrote that you believe that that's  that you have no problem with it [the death penalty] as long as it's the law? [JUROR FRY:] That is correct. [PROSECUTOR:] And you heard today the four-step process that the law requires with respect to a death penalty sentencing hearing? [JUROR FRY:] Yes. [PROSECUTOR:] That's the law that the judge instructs you, is that a law you can follow? [JUROR FRY:] Yes. [PROSECUTOR:] And you understand that that doesn't mean that everybody that's convicted of intentional, deliberate first-degree murder, gets the death penalty? [JUROR FRY:] That is correct. [PROSECUTOR:] Do you believe that's the way it ought to be? [JUROR FRY:] If that's the way the jurors are feeling, yes. [PROSECUTOR:] Okay. So you agree with the law in Colorado that says you go through this four-step process. It's not automatic that everybody convicted of intentional, deliberate murder gets death? [JUROR FRY:] I believe that the way the laws are lined up, that is right. Subsequently, defense counsel questioned Juror Fry: [DEFENSE:] Now, you had also indicated that  I think you told [the prosecutor] that the death penalty shouldn't be given in all what we call first-degree murder offenses, which are intentionally, after deliberation, and without, you know, self-defense or accident or things of that nature, causes the death of another human being. Is that what you  do you agree with that or do you think the death penalty should be given in those circumstances? [JUROR FRY:] If it's right out just murder and killing somebody for no reason or anything, yes. [DEFENSE:] Okay. So you think the death penalty should be given? [JUROR FRY:] Yes. [DEFENSE:] Where it's just out-and-out murder? [JUROR FRY:] Yes. [DEFENSE:] And the prosecution has proven the case? Okay. So again when we're talking about murder is intentionally, he meant to do it; after deliberation, meaning he thought about it or planned it; without legal justification, meaning accident or not accident, not self-defense, not legal insanity, causes the death of another person, that's the kind of case that you think that the death penalty should be given? [JUROR FRY:] Yes. [DEFENSE:] And you think it should be given in every case which they've proved beyond a reasonable doubt, you know, to your satisfaction that it's intentionally, after deliberation, causes  without legal justification, causes the death of another person? [JUROR FRY:] I believe so, yes. [DEFENSE:] Okay. Are there any facts or factors that would convince you otherwise? [JUROR FRY:] It would depend upon the evidence that the prosecution presented. [DEFENSE:] Okay. So  [JUROR FRY:] Whether there was reasonable doubt that that was the person or not. [DEFENSE:] Okay. So other than whether there's reasonable doubts of the person out there, there are no other facts or circumstances that you would consider? [JUROR FRY:] I don't believe so. After hearing the defendant's challenge for cause, the trial court made these remarks concerning Fry's views on the death penalty: I think Mr. Fry's going to be a good juror. I don't think he's substantially impaired from this case by view of his opinions on the death penalty. .... And I think Mr. Fry would listen to all of the circumstances in mitigation and aggravation and make a decision and I don't think we can ask for anything more than that. I will not excuse Mr. Fry. The record is adequate to support the trial court's ruling. The trial court's decision to deny Harlan's sentencing phase challenge for cause was predicated principally on its finding that Juror Fry could consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances. When asked directly by defense counsel whether he believed anyone found guilty of first degree murder should get a death sentence, Juror Fry indicated that he in fact thought so. However, defense counsel's questions did not establish that Fry could not set aside those personal beliefs and follow the law as instructed. Moreover, when questioned by the prosecution, Fry indicated an adequate understanding of the sentencing process and a willingness to follow that process when determining what sentence to impose on the defendant. Juror Fry also told the prosecution that the death sentence may not be appropriate punishment for all instances of first degree murder. While there are troubling inconsistencies in Fry's various statements concerning the death penalty, we conclude that the record provides enough evidence to support the trial court's denial of Harlan's sentencing phase challenge for cause.