Opinion ID: 2550813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Juror Kimberly Williams

Text: Defense counsel cited the following portion of Ms. Williams' testimony: [Counsel]: Ms. Williams, what do you think about this mitigating factor stuff we talked about? Williams: I feel like it really doesn't make a difference if there was a reason to believe he was guilty. [Counsel]: ... We're talking about in the penalty phase would you consider any mitigating factors that were presented to you? Williams: I would by law. I don't think it would make a difference. [Counsel]: Do you think you would automatically vote for a death verdict if you got to the penalty phase? Williams: Probably, yeah. [Counsel]: Just a word of advice for everybody. When you use the word probable, you can be rest assured that there are going to be many questions that follow it. Williams: I should have said yes.    [Counsel]: ... So the law says that if you're selected as a juror, the judge will tell you the law says you shall consider any mitigating factors that's presented to you in determining what is the appropriate sentence. Would you be able to do that or would you automatically vote death? Williams: Yes, I could do that. The record shows that later, Ms. Williams also stated that she does not believe the death penalty is appropriate in all cases in which one person intentionally kills another, and believes it is of some benefit to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances even after the person has been found guilty. Finally, during examination by the court, Williams stated that she would seriously consider imposing a life sentence if the circumstances and law warranted it. Accordingly, we note that in this case, it appears the defendant has based his argument on only a small portion of testimony given by Ms. Williams during voir dire. While at first it appeared she had strong convictions concerning the death penalty, it became clear during further questioning by the State, defense counsel, and the court, that Ms. Williams was willing and able to consider all relevant information before deciding to vote for a death or life sentence. Thus, we find that the record as a whole shows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when denying defendant's cause challenge.