Opinion ID: 2382089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Veniremember Bollinger

Text: The prosecutor asked Veniremember Bollinger the same introductory question as discussed above. She responded that she could never consider the death penalty, no matter how horrible the crime. Defense counsel then asked of the panel: If you found a person guilty of murder in the first degree, you have already made that determination, now is there anybody in this first row here that would automatically say the death penalty and only the death penalty, and would not consider a sentence of life in prison without parole or probation? Ms. Bollinger responded affirmatively, but then admitted that she had misunderstood defense counsel's question. Then the following exchange took place: Q: ... did you tell us here in the courtroom that you would never be able to sentence a person to death? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Is that still your position? A: Yes. Q: And nothing we could ever do would make you consider a sentence of death? A: I will not be a hand to anything like that. The entirety of Bollinger's voir dire demonstrates that she could not perform the duties of a juror in a capital case, namely, consider the death penalty. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's challenge for cause against her.