Opinion ID: 1264125
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Individual voir dire issue

Text: Appellant argues the trial judge erred in excusing a potential juror (Juror) for cause during individual voir dire without first permitting his lawyers to personally examine her. Appellant contends the judge did not have the discretion to excuse Juror. We disagree. Juror was the fourth venireman examined during individual voir dire. Responding to questions from the trial judge, Juror testified she would accept and apply the law as instructed by the court. She testified she could find a defendant not guilty in a criminal case; however, she could not find a defendant guilty. Juror testified she was a member of the Holiness religion, did not believe in judging anyone, and would be unable under any circumstances to find a defendant guilty. Juror testified, I mean, they could be guilty but I'm not going to sit on the jury stand and say that they're guilty because it's not right to say whether they're guilty or not. The judge and attorneys discussed Juror's responses outside her presence. The judge requested Appellant's attorneys suggest questions he might ask Juror. No questions were suggested, but Appellant's attorneys requested an opportunity to examine and possibly rehabilitate Juror by clarifying her responses. The judge denied the request, but examined her further about the source of her beliefs. Juror testified her beliefs were personal, and she was unaware of any pastoral counseling or similar program she could undergo in order to sit in judgment of another person. Juror testified she could not find someone guilty in so serious as this case is and she did not want to have [any] part in saying what, you know, where he's going to be at, you know. The judge excused Juror for cause over defense counsel's objection, relying primarily on State v. Tucker, 334 S.C. 1, 512 S.E.2d 99 (1999). The presiding judge shall determine whether any juror is disqualified or exempted by law and only he shall disqualify or excuse any juror as may be provided by law. S.C.Code Ann. § 14-7-1010 (Supp.2003). The authority and responsibility of the trial court is to focus the scope of the voir dire examination as set forth in S.C.Code Ann. 14-7-1020 (Supp.2003). State v. Hill, 331 S.C. 94, 103, 501 S.E.2d 122, 127 (1998) (citing State v. Plath, 281 S.C. 1, 313 S.E.2d 619 (1984)). A capital defendant has the right to examine jurors through counsel pursuant to S.C.Code Ann. 16-3-20(D) (Supp.2003), but that statute does not enlarge the scope of voir dire permitted under Section 14-7-1020. [2] Id. The scope of voir dire and the manner in which it is conducted generally are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Id. (citing State v. Smart, 278 S.C. 515, 299 S.E.2d 686 (1982), overruled on other grounds by State v. Torrence, 305 S.C. 45, 406 S.E.2d 315 (1991)). Voir dire examination serves the dual purposes of enabling the court to select an impartial jury and assisting counsel in exercising peremptory challenges. Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 431, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 1908, 114 L.Ed.2d 493, 509 (1991). A capital defendants right to voir dire, while grounded in statutory law, also is rooted in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. See id.; Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 2230, 119 L.Ed.2d 492, 503 (1992). To be constitutionally compelled, it is not enough that a question may be helpful. Rather, the trial court's failure to ask or allow a question must render the defendant's trial fundamentally unfair. Mu'Min, 500 U.S. at 425, 111 S.Ct. at 1905, 114 L.Ed.2d at 506; State v. Tucker, 334 S.C. 1, 10, 512 S.E.2d 99, 103 (1999). An appellate court will not disturb the trial court's disqualification of a prospective juror when there is a reasonable basis from which the trial court could have concluded the juror would not have been able to faithfully discharge his responsibilities as a juror under the law. Tucker, 334 S.C. at 11, 512 S.E.2d at 104 (citing State v. Green, 301 S.C. 347, 392 S.E.2d 157 (1990)). We conclude the trial judge properly excused Juror for cause. Section 14-7-1010 requires the judge determine whether a juror is disqualified or exempted by law, a determination that may be made before parties are given an opportunity to examine the juror in a death penalty case. A juror who testifies she would not be able to find a criminal defendant guilty under any circumstances is disqualified by law. Such a person may not be seated because she would be unable to fulfill her duties as a juror or apply the law as it is given to her by the court. See also State v. Plath, 281 S.C. 1, 5, 313 S.E.2d 619, 621 (1984) (court repeatedly has said test of juror's qualification under Section 16-3-20 is ability to both reach a verdict of either guilt or innocence and, if necessary, to vote for death sentence). In addition, the trial judge's excusal of Juror is supported by Tucker, supra . In that case, the trial court excused for cause a juror, a Jehovah's Witness, because the juror stated he could not sit in judgment without undergoing religious counseling that might take four days. The juror was excused during the general qualifying of the jury pool. We rejected the argument that the excusal improperly prevented defense counsel from rehabilitating the juror during individual voir dire as to his views on the death penalty and the special circumstances which might allow him to sit as a juror. We found the trial court properly excluded the juror because his religious beliefs which prohibit judging another person would prevent or substantially impair the performance of juror's duties; therefore, a reasonable basis existed in support of the trial court's excusal of the juror for cause. Tucker, 334 S.C. at 10-11, 512 S.E.2d at 103-104. In the present case, the trial judge's lengthy colloquy with Juror revealed she would be unable to return a verdict of guilty under any circumstances. Her belief she should not sit in judgment of another rendered her incapable of fulfilling her basic responsibilities as a juror, and would have prevented or substantially impaired the performance of her duties as a juror. Consequently, a reasonable basis existed for the trial judge's excusal for cause of Juror. See Sections 14-7-1010 and -1020; Tucker, supra ; Plath, supra . Furthermore, we conclude her excusal for cause did not render Appellant's trial fundamentally unfair. See Mu'Min, supra ; Tucker, supra . Appellant argues we should find State v. Atkins, 293 S.C. 294, 360 S.E.2d 302 (1987), overruled on other grounds by Torrence, supra, to be controlling, not Tucker. In Atkins, the trial court excused four potential jurors for cause, without allowing counsel for either side to examine them, after concluding they were opposed to the death penalty. We emphasized in Atkins that case law and the mandatory language of Section 16-3-20(D) make it clear that the trial courts discretion does not extend so far as to authorize it to refuse counsel the right to conduct any examination at all in a capital case. When our legislature has seen fit to enact special statutory requirements to be followed in death penalty cases, the courts should endeavor to see that these are strictly followed. Atkins, 293 S.C. at 297, 360 S.E.2d at 304. We explained in Atkins that further examination by counsel might reveal the juror would be able to subordinate his personal views and apply the law of the state. The error could not be deemed harmless as the defendant was sentenced to death; therefore, we reversed and remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding. Id; see also State v. Owens, 277 S.C. 189, 192, 284 S.E.2d 584, 586 (1981) (finding error in trial courts dismissal of two potential jurors for cause, without allowing defense counsel to examine them, when jurors indicated opposition to death penalty, although issue was moot because defendant was given a life sentence). Atkins is distinguishable on two grounds. First, the juror qualification issue in Atkins was the ability of jurors to consider both the death penalty and life imprisonment. In the present case, the qualification issue was whether Juror believed she could sit on a jury in judgment of another person at all. Her comments and belief she could never find someone guilty in such a serious case disqualified her, at a more fundamental level than the jurors in Atkins, to serve. See Plath, supra . Second, it is clear from this record that further examination of Juror would have been unlikely to reveal she could subordinate her views and apply the law of the state. Juror unequivocally and repeatedly stated during thorough examination by the trial judge she would be unable to find the defendant guilty. In fact, Appellant's attorneys were given an opportunity to suggest additional questions to the trial judge, but suggested none. Nevertheless, the trial judge after conferring with counsel examined Juror further to ascertain the basis of her beliefs. Appellant also contends Tucker is distinguishable because Juror was excused during individual voir dire, while the juror in Tucker was excused during the general juror qualification process. This distinction is unpersuasive because the basic requirement of ensuring a juror is qualified and able to render a fair and just verdict to either party based on the facts and the law applies throughout the jury selection process. We do not intend, by this decision or the decision in Tucker, to dilute the mandate of Section 16-3-20(D) as expressed in Atkins, supra . When the record reveals a juror plainly is not qualified, after thorough examination by the trial judge, to serve and it does not reasonably appear further examination would likely reveal the juror could subordinate his views and apply the law of the state, a reasonable basis exists for excusal for cause of the juror without further examination by defense counsel. Accordingly, the trial judge did not err and properly exercised his discretion in excusing Juror for cause.