Opinion ID: 1808976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Venireperson LeBlanc

Text: In the second assigned error regarding voir dire, the defense argues that venireperson Timothy LeBlanc refused to consider intoxication as a mitigating factor. Consequently, the defense was forced to use a peremptory challenge to excuse LeBlanc. Again, a reviewing court owes a district judge's decisions on challenges great deference and must not overturn them unless the record as a whole, including rehabilitation, shows an abuse of discretion. Cross, 93-1189 at 7, 658 So.2d at 686; Robertson, 92-2660 at 4, 630 So.2d at 1281; State v. Ross, 623 So.2d 643, 644 (La.1993). Defense counsel's initial questioning went as follows: Q Do you understand the question? A Yes, sir. Q And you raised your hand? A Yes, sir. Q Give me your answer. A On ... Q Could you consider intoxication, if instructed by the Judge, as a mitigating circumstance in ... this case? A No, sir. Q You could not follow that instruction by the Court? A No, sir. Subsequent rehabilitation by the district attorney was as follows: Q Mr. Leblanc, when Mr. Armitage [,defense counsel,] asked you about the mitigating circumstance which was, at the time of the offense the capacity of the offender to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or intoxication. You raised your hand and said that you would have trouble with that mitigating circumstance as it relates to intoxication? A Yes. The intoxication. Q Do you understand that all the law says is you've got to consider it, that if the defense proves that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the offense... if they prove that? A Yes, sir. Q And the intoxication was to a degree, not just intoxicated, but intoxicated to a degree that it should excuse his conduct or that it should be a mitigating factor doesn't mean that because you have one mitigating factor that you vote one way or the other, it's a weighing process. Do you understand that you may not think it is a great enough mitigating circumstance to change your mind, or it may not be the one that changes your mind about death penalty or life imprisonment, it's just one of them that you are to consider? A Yes, sir. Q It's not the one that makes the determination one way or another, it's just a determination, you understand that? A Yes, sir. Q You understand that the theory here is that ... is that if a person is intoxicated to a degree that he acts in a way that ... or she acts in a way that they would not normally act that is a mitigating circumstance? A Right. Q You understand that? A Yeah, I understand now. Q And, of course, if you were ... if someone you knew were sitting in the same circum ... the same situation that is the kind of mitigating circumstance we want to have. A Right. Q You understand? A Yes. Q And what is the possibility of ... you know there's two types of intoxication, voluntary and involuntary. If it was an involuntary intoxication that the person had absolutely no control over, you know, someone slipped a drug into his meal or something, you understand? A Yeah. Um-huh. Q That would be a mitigating circumstance, don't you agree? A Yes, sir. That's something he couldn't help. Q Right. All right, that's one kind, the other kind, of course is voluntary. Somebody is intoxicated to a degree that it should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. Not a controlling circumstance necessarily, but one of the things that you are to consider. Do you understand how the law is set up? A Yeah. Q Do you feel like you cannot consider the intoxication at all? A As a ... Q A mitigating ... just a mitigating circumstance, that's all. A Mitigating ... no, sir. Q Something that you should consider (Interrupted) A Probably not. Q Not at all? A No, sir. Q You understand (Interrupted) A Well, what if I ... OK, what if I ... if it ... if he has ... if the person has a problem with it, then yes, I could probably consider that, but if he doesn't have a drinking problem, or a drug problem, then no, sir, I couldn't consider it. Q Well, if he had a drug problem ... if the person committed a crime that they wouldn't normally commit because of an intoxicated condition either drug or alcohol, I'd say that's a problem. A Yes, sir. Q Are you saying that if the person has a continuing problem with it? A Yeah, continuing problem. Q Do you understand that it's not required that you excuse the conduct, that it's just required that you consider it as a (Interrupted) A Yes, sir. I understand that. Q You don't have to say it is a mitigating circumstance, you just have to say that... you just have to ... uh ... feel that it's something that you could consider, you're not ... you don't have to say it is. You have to say ... you're not required to say right now that if a person is intoxicated a little bit or whole lot, I would ... that would determine my opinion. What we're asking you to do (Interrupted) A It wouldn't determine my opinion. Q It would not? A No. Q You would consider it and make the... and give it its appropriate weight at the time you had to make the decision on mitigating and aggravating? A Yes, sir. Q Could you do that? A Depending on the case. Yes, sir. Q You understand you just shifted. I'm afraid that ... that we're a little confused here. I'm afraid that it's got confusing, and I apologize for that. And I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to make sure that ... I'm just afraid I'm not doing a very good job of explaining what are mitigating circumstances. Everyone of these ... uh ... the youth of the offender, that's one of them, that's number ... whatever it is. That is something for you ... that you must consider, if a person is 17, 18, 19, 20, that's something that the law says that you are to consider. You do not have to say, I think because of the youth of the offender that the conduct was excusable to the point that I don't think the death penalty is appropriate. You can say that, but you're not required to. All the law says is that you have to make that one of your considerations. It doesn't determine that it has to be the consideration. Am I making sense? A Yes. Q Do you understand how that works? A Yes. Q Just like an aggravating circumstance. The aggravating circumstance is that the first degree murder was during the commission of an armed robbery. That is an aggravating circumstance that you ... if you find you must consider. That doesn't mean that because it's during the first degree murder you automatically vote for the death penalty. You weigh them out. A Yeah, I know that. Q If it is a 19 year old during the commission of a armed robbery you weigh it out, and it's the same thing with the intoxication and mental disease defense, or mitigating circumstance. You consider it and you give it its due weight, whatever you determine that it's going to be, whatever your personal feelings are, based on the evidence, whatever, as long as you follow the law and you consider it. Then it ... that's what it's designed to do. You consider it, you assign to it whatever you think is right. A Yes. Q Do you think you could do that with intoxication? A Yes, sir. Q OK. Do you understand you've shifted now, you shifted what you said before. A Well, I don't ... Q You're not so sure you did shift, you didn't understand the question? A Right. Q OK. That's what I was afraid of. You understand that intoxication is something that you are to consider? A Yes, sir, I understand that. Q And do what you want with it. A OK. Q Just like any other mitigating circumstance, or any other aggravating circumstance. A Yes. Q And you would consider it and give it its due weight based on the facts of this case? A Yes, sir. Q And if it's a first degree murder verdict, and you're required as a juror to come back and determine the appropriate penalty, it would be based on the fact of this case and the offender in this case. A Yes, sir. Q You understand that? A Yes, sir. Q Not based on anything else? A Right Q And you could consider that intoxication (Interrupted) A As a mitigating (Interrupted) Q ... as a mitigating circumstance? A Yes, sir. Q OK. Fine. Initially, venireperson LeBlanc said that he could not follow an instruction directing him to consider intoxication as a mitigating factor. However, under subsequent questioning by the district attorney, LeBlanc said that he underst[ood] now the idea of intoxication as a mitigating circumstance and could consider it depending on the case. Mr. LeBlanc agreed that he would give it its due weight based on the facts of this case. A review of Mr. LeBlanc's entire testimony shows that he would assess all of the evidence presented before making a decision. The colloquy reflects that the state successfully rehabilitated LeBlanc; accordingly, the challenge for cause was properly denied. Assignments of Error Nos. 7, 10, and 11 are without merit.