Opinion ID: 1353139
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Excusal of Five Jurors Based on Attitudes Toward the Death Penalty

Text: Appellant asserts that the trial court deprived him of a fair and impartial jury by improperly excusing five prospective jurors based on their opposition to the death penalty. The basis of this contention is that the trial court inadequately questioned prospective jurors CM, BC, RD, WH, and JS after they expressed their reservations. A prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his or her views on capital punishment if those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. [94] The mere expression of reservations or scruples about capital punishment is not enough to determine that person's position [u]nless a venireman states unambiguously that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal. [95] The excusal of jurors for cause is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. [96] In response to questioning by the court, CM stated that she could not put anybody to death because of her religious beliefs. BC stated repeatedly that she did not believe in capital punishment and would not impose it under any circumstances. RD told the court that she would automatically exclude the death penalty from consideration. WH also stated that he did not believe in capital punishment and would not consider it. After hearing the range of possible punishments, JS initially stated that she had a problem with the death penalty because of her religious beliefs, but that circumstances might modify that feeling. She went on to say that neither twenty years' imprisonment nor life imprisonment was enough punishment for murder. She stated that life without the possibility of parole was enough. We are convinced that the prospective jurors unequivocally stated their inability to impose the death penalty under any circumstances. In the case of JS, although she stated that circumstances might affect her opposition to capital punishment, she also stated that she could not consider the minimum sentence either. [97] There was no abuse of discretion.