Opinion ID: 1151655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: thomas j. stephens

Text: At trial, the defendant challenged this potential juror based on Mr. Stephens' poor health, his relationship with the St. Martin Parish Sheriff, and his concerns about missing a pending election. Defense counsel objected to the trial court's denial of the challenge for cause and exercised a peremptory challenge against Mr. Stephens. The defendant now contends the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause based on Mr. Stephens' stated concern for his aging father, the juror's own questionable health, and his concerns about voting in an upcoming election. The record reveals no support for the defendant's claims. With regard to his own health, Mr. Stephens stated he had had heart surgery and had an upcoming appointment scheduled with a vascular surgeon for a test. He stated he became dizzy and nauseous when he worked under his car or under the sink to do plumbing while lying on his back with his arms extended. Mr. Stephens was not taking medication other than aspirin for his condition and was on a low-fat diet. He indicated that, as long as his appointment could be rescheduled and his doctor approved, he would have no trouble serving on the jury. As to his concern for his father, Mr. Stephens explained he checked on his father about twice a day, ran errands for him, and took him to weekly hospital or doctors' appointments. He admitted he would feel a little disturbed about missing the Easter holiday with his father. [10] Mr. Stephens informed the court, however, of a cousin whom his father would call on. He also stated he did not believe that his concern for his father would mean he would miss something of significance during the trial. The record shows the extent of Mr. Stephens's political activity was also insufficient as a basis for a challenge for cause. When told he may not be able to vote in an upcoming election, Mr. Stephens indicated this would disturb [him] to some extent and he would feel like I'm letting [his candidate] down. Earlier, however, he indicated if the court could not arrange some sort of absentee voting procedure, then I just can't vote and stated that I understand. With regard to his friendship with law enforcement personnel, Mr. Stephens stated he had friends who were police officers whom he saw when they rode by in their units. Mr. Stephens indicated he was friendly with the St. Martin Parish Sheriff and that he saw the sheriff on occasion, depending on the sheriff's activities. When defense counsel attempted to ask Mr. Stephens whether he would tend to believe the testimony of some of the sheriff's deputies over other witnesses, the state objected to the phrasing of the question. Although the trial court overruled the state's objection, defense counsel never returned to the issue. The defendant failed to show that Mr. Stephens's friendship with law enforcement personnel destroyed an otherwise impartial attitude of the prospective juror. Previous associations with either law enforcement agencies or personnel will not alone disqualify a prospective juror from service. Jones, 474 So.2d at 926. If Mr. Stephens' friendship was such as would disqualify him as a juror, it was for defense counsel to show such disqualification in the voir dire. State v. Chapman, 410 So.2d 689, 711 (La.1982). Considering Mr. Stephens's responses to the voir dire examination as a whole, it cannot be said the trial judge abused his discretion in denying the defense's challenge for cause.