Opinion ID: 1751529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: whether the removal of jurors for cause denied jimmie mack an impartial jury in violation of witherspoon and fuselier and in violation of the mississippi constitution, the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the u.s. constitution:

Text: Mack's brief addresses this assignment of error in three parts. With regard to the first two parts, Mack urges specific instances of error made during the State's and court's voir dire. A review of the record, however, shows that Mack did not object to either the comments made by the State or by the court. Since [Mack] failed to object to the judge's remarks during voir dire, this aspect of [Mack's] assignment of error is procedurally barred. Corley v. State, 536 So.2d 1314, 1316 (Miss. 1988) citing Myers v. State, 268 So.2d 353, 356 (Miss. 1972). The rule is well established that contemporaneous objection is necessary to preserve the right to raise an error on appeal. King v. State, 615 So.2d 1202, 1207 (Miss. 1993); Miss. R.Evid. 103(a). In part three, Mack argues that the court erred when it did not let him rehabilitate those jurors who the court felt should be excluded under Witherspoon. Although errors claimed in the first two parts have not been properly preserved for review, an analysis on the merit of all claims follows.
Mack contends that the trial court conducted voir dire on the death qualification issue, but did not adequately question the jurors to reach the truth of whether they could be impartial and consider all sentencing options. Mack argues that all but one of the prospective jurors stated during the early questioning by the court that they could follow the law and the instructions of the court, even if they did not agree with them. Mack argues that since these jurors answered that they could follow the law at the beginning of the court's voir dire, they should not have been excluded even though they answered that they would automatically vote against the death penalty in the later voir dire. Mack asserts that, at most, the eight prospective jurors gave contradictory statements which would indicate ambivalence, equivocation and/or confusion, any of which would require further inquiry on voir dire to clarify the jurors' views. Even though Mack acknowledges that these jurors were not removed until after both the state and the defense questioned the jury panel, he argues that venire members should only be excluded, if they are irrevocably committed to vote against the death sentence regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings, and if their views would prevent them from making an impartial decision on the question of guilt. Witherspoon v. State, 391 U.S. 510, 422, n. 21, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 1777, n. 21, 20 L.Ed.2d 776, 785 (1968). The trial court informed the jurors that the case was a capital case and that the death penalty could be imposed if there is a guilty verdict. The court then voir dired the panel to determine if any member of the panel had conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty, when the law authorizes it, and where the testimony warrants it. The eight prospective jurors answered that even if the facts and the law justified the death sentence, they could not impose the death sentence. These jurors were excused. It is not error to excuse jurors from the guilt phase of a capital murder prosecution who indicate inability to vote for death penalty under any circumstances. Cabello v. State, 471 So.2d 332, 345 (Miss. 1985). A prospective juror may be struck if the juror indicates that he or she cannot consider and decide the facts impartially or cannot conscientiously apply the law or the court's instructions. The juror need not expressly state that he or she absolutely refuses to consider the death penalty; an equivalent response made in any reasonable manner which indicates that the juror's position is firm will suffice. Id. Compare Willie v. State, 585 So.2d 660, 672 (Miss. 1991) (prospective juror may not be struck from the jury venire for cause simply because the juror voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against infliction of the death penalty). The jurors who were excused did not simply voice general objections to the death penalty or say that even though they had scruples against the death penalty that they would be able to follow the law. They stated that they could not vote for the death penalty, even if the law and facts justified the penalty. The trial court did not err when it excused the jurors. In addition to being waived, this contention has no merit.
Mack contends that the prosecutor gave a confusing, prejudicial, and erroneous definition of conscientious scruples to the jurors. Mack argues that the State sought a commitment of how the jurors would vote and presupposed that having conscientious scruples is synonymous with an absolute inability to vote for death and confused the veniremen. Mack argued that an individual's conscience is bound to come into play when making any life or death decision, regardless of his or her beliefs about capital punishment, but this does not constitute conscientious scruples against the imposition of the death penalty. Mack contends that the combined effect of the confusion created by the State and the judge's statements deprived him of an impartial jury. Mack asserts that the definition of conscientious scruples and comments confused jurors and that this confusion was compounded by the court's effort to elicit only that answer which would disqualify the juror. During the state's voir dire in the present case, the prosecutor made the following statement: Mellen: ... [I]t is kind of generally speaking  conscientious, it goes to your conscience, deep down for some reason, morally, ethically, or for some reason inside you have scruples against it. That means you've got feelings deep down against the death sentence ... Let me be just straight out. If you are selected on that jury, then you would be sitting in this jury box and if the States proves it [sic] case, that is guilt, then you would have to decide to give death or not. You would. Court: They could decide either way, counsel. Mellen: I thought I said could. Do you understand that? Now, having said that, and I'll go back to that same question that the Court did about conscientious scruples, if there is someone who has conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death sentence where the law and the facts would justify the death sentence in this case, which you could not vote for death. Is there anybody  (juror raises hand) all right. You raised your hand yesterday. Is there anybody new? (Juror raises hand). When the court asked the two jurors who raised their hands whether they would automatically vote against the death penalty, both said, Yes, I would because I've got a conscience. In inquiring further whether the juror[s] would follow its instructions and [render] a fair verdict according to the law and the evidence Gray v. State, 472 So.2d 409, 421 (Miss. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 481 U.S. 648, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987), the court asked: Well, you don't have to give me why, just tell me whether you would automatically vote against it regardless of the facts and the law; is that correct? Both jurors stated that they would automatically vote against the death penalty. The court properly excused these prospective jurors. There was no objection lodged at the time that the question was posed and the point is, therefore, waived. Cannaday v. State, 455 So.2d 713, 718-19 (Miss. 1984). In addition to being waived, there is no merit to this contention.
In this sub-issue, Mack contends that the trial court erred when it excluded the potential jurors without permitting him to question them in a rehabilitative effort. Mack concedes, however, that the prospective jurors, who were excused on the court's initiative, were not excused until after both the State and defense conducted voir dire of the panel. Mack relies on Balfour v. State, 598 So.2d 731, 754 (Miss. 1992), for the proposition that the parties are entitled to further examination of prospective jurors, supplemental to that of the trial judge. The State does not respond to Mack's argument. Balfour is distinguishable from the instant case. In Balfour, the potential juror expressed reservations or concerns about the imposition of the death penalty. There was more than a slim chance that the juror could have been rehabilitated based on answer: I could follow  if I understood  if I'm understanding clearly, I could follow  I could read it, but it would still more or less be life imprisonment. Id. at 756. Conversely, in the instant case, the jurors stated that they could not set aside their belief and apply the law and that they would automatically vote against the death penalty. There is only a slim likelihood that the defense could have rehabilitated them. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114 (Miss. 1991). Mack also argues that the court should have allowed him to use hypotheticals to rehabilitate the jurors, who stated that they would automatically vote against the death penalty, even if the facts and law justified its imposition. In requesting the use of the hypotheticals, the following colloquy transpired: Court: Now, counsel, I think we have got a number right now that ought to be released on the conscientious scruples that came through clearly and that said they would automatically vote against the death penalty, and I don't know if counsel is going to make a perjurer out of them or not, but it is not that many. In fact, it is  Pearson:  (interposing) Your Honor, what I propose to do on behalf of the defendant is to submit to them a hypothetical situation of facts that I think would justify the death penalty and ask them if they would refuse to vote for the death penalty in that kind of situation. Court: We don't submit hypotheticals in voir dire, Mr. Pearson. That's one thing that the Court tells them that counsel will not do  Pearson:  Not as to this case, Your Honor. An example would be that assume that you are sitting on the jury and it has been proved to you that this defendant butchered up two little girls in 1988, cut their body parts up and fed them to the hogs. In 1989, he butchered up two ladies and threw their bodies in the dumpster and in 1990 he killed a guard at the penitentiary. Court: Well, if you want to tell them that he did all of that, I'll be glad for you to do that. Pearson: Not for this man, but in a hypothetical  under those situations would you still refuse to vote for the death penalty and if they say, yes, I will still refuse to vote, I think they are clearly not qualified. Court: But, Mr. Pearson, I am not going to let you go into hypotheticals, particularly  Pearson:  All right. We just wanted to put it on the record. Court: There may be some others that come up after counsel has voir dire (sic) that have conscientious scruples, but counsel usually everyone that I have ever done  I don't remember anyone that I have ever done, voir dired in a death penalty case, where the jurors were as emphatic about automatically voting against the death penalty as these few, and it is very few. But if you want to voir dire them  but as long as they tell me under the Court's questions and I believe those questions came right out of one of the U.S. Supreme Court cases, unless it has been changed. In fact, I think the second question is probably unnecessary but I ask when they say they have conscientious scruples but there was a U.S. Supreme Court case, I think, that mentions that and probably the reason they mentioned that  Would it affect your death penalty or would it affect your guilt phase vote, and there are some states and I believe Texas is one that it doesn't take all twelve for the death penalty, so if this were a state that didn't take all twelve for the death penalty, the second question, that is, would it affect their guilt phase vote, would be an appropriate question, where all twelve weren't required or where in some states where the judge determines the death penalty. That second question that I ask whether that would affect their verdict in the guilt phase. See, there are some states, as I understand it, the judge determines that and if the juror knew that it might affect their vote in the guilt phase. Under ours I don't really think that it matters. We could probably go directly to question number three, because it still requires a unanimous vote of all the jurors. Pearson: Your Honor, our position is that merely having conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty does not disqualify a juror. It is only when  Court:  Wait a minute, counsel. I went further. I am just talking about those who just said they would automatically vote against it regardless of the facts and the law. Pearson: Yes, sir, I misunderstood what you were saying. I am aware of the questions that you asked, but I do think that we are entitled to go into that. Your questions were correct that if the facts justified the death sentence would you vote for it and they said, no. But I think I am entitled to really explain and demonstrate to them what is meant when the facts justify it and I think I am entitled by showing an extreme situation where anyone that would vote a death penalty would vote it in that type of case. And if they would still refuse to vote it in that type case, then I agree they would not be qualified. Court: I am not going to get into other cases like the serial killers somewhere else, you know, you are not going to use those hypotheticals. I am not going to do that. Pearson: All right. We would merely like  Counsel:  (interposing) Unless counsel for the State agreed. Mellen: No, sir. Pearson: We would merely like for the record to reflect that we did propose to do that and it is Your Honor's rule that we cannot pursue that.       Court: I don't know of anything that can be any stronger than that  Would you automatically vote against it regardless of the facts and the law. Isn't that what I have said? Pearson: Yes, sir, Your Honor, it is. But I do think perhaps if they could consider what you are talking about when they only hear if the facts justify it, that doesn't give them the opportunity to consider a sample situation in their minds and if they would return a verdict of a death penalty in any type factual situation, then that would qualify them as a juror. Court: Well, you are asking the question would they ever return a verdict of  they have already told me that they have conscientious scruples and they would automatically vote against it. Pearson: Yes, sir. Court: We are not going to get into talking about some other crimes somewhere else. Pearson: All right, sir.    . Mack complains that the trial court restricted his right to question the prospective jurors about their ability to be fair and impartial by denying him the opportunity to voir dire them through the use of hypotheticals. Under section 13-5-69 of the Mississippi Code Annotated, the defense counsel has the right to ask questions of the jurors, who the court purports to excuse for cause. However, Rule 5.02 of the Uniform Criminal Rules of Circuit Court Practices provides that counsel may not propound hypothetical questions that would require the jury to pledge a particular verdict. Here, it cannot be said with certainty that defense counsel purported to transgress this rule. Rather than seek a pledge, defendant seemed interested in using hypotheticals to determine whether the prospective jurors would consider the death penalty under any circumstances. The record indicates, however, that the court allowed defense counsel to rehabilitate the jurors through other questions. In fact, counsel rehabilitated Juror Banks and the court denied the state's challenge for cause. Counsel's hypothetical was mischaracterized as one offending Rule 5.02. Trial courts have a responsibility to control voir dire but in doing so they must take care not to hinder a full exploration of a juror's predispositions, by hypothetical or otherwise. Dennis v. United States, 339 U.S. 162, 171-72, 70 S.Ct. 519, 523-24, 94 L.Ed. 734 (1950). Nevertheless, it does not appear that the court committed reversible error during voir dire here, because trial counsel was allowed to accomplish full exploration by other means. This assignment of error is without merit.