Opinion ID: 1718692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: James Jones

Text: Jones was questioned in Pool 1, Panel 1. When the prosecutor began the initial death-qualifying inquiries, Jones disclosed his feelings on the subject of capital punishment: Well in my personal opinion one of the Ten Commandments is thou shall not kill.... If the defendant is guilty and he did kill, if I sentence him to death, would I ... would I be killing? Jones conceded that those feelings might interfere with his ability to render a death verdict. When questioned by defense counsel, Jones ranked himself as a four on a scale of one to ten, with one being the least favorable to the death penalty. He further admitted that he did a report on capital punishment at the age of twelve, and that he has had mixed feelings about it with my religion ever[] since. When counsel queried whether Jones thought that innocent people may have been put to death, Jones replied: Yes, sir. I do believe so, but I also believe there's been guilty people walk away though. Counsel sought to rehabilitate Jones, who claimed: I feel like I could consider both sides in making my decision. But when asked if he could vote for the death penalty, Jones expressed his true feelings: I'm not sure. That's just a touchy subject with me. I mean I'd have to have all of the facts, but I wouldn't want to be judged for something like that. Jones confirmed his Christian beliefs as the possible source of his hesitancy in serving on a jury: Judge not or you shall be judged. Thereafter, the State issued a challenge for cause as to Jones, and counsel objected that Jones had expressed a willingness to consider both verdicts. However, because Jones did not indicate expressly that he could vote for both, the court decided to bring him back for individualized voir dire. The judge explained again what would be required of him, if he was chosen for this capital jury. Jones admitted that my beliefs might interfere with my duty.... I have very ... very strong feelings about that I'll be clear about. Yes, sir. Jones reiterated that he felt strongly that he did not want to be responsible for taking someone's life. The judge then asked Jones, if the defendant were found guilty of first degree murder, would he vote his beliefs and always vote life, thereby depriving the state from seeking the death penalty. Jones replied: Correct. I don't think a jury could make me change my beliefs on that because I would have to live with that for the rest of my life. After the judge explained the evidence that would be presented at a possible penalty phase with an aim toward voting for the appropriate penalty, death or life, Jones observed: I don't think that I would be fair to the state if he was convicted and found guilty. Afterwards, the State renewed its cause challenge as to Jones, which the trial court granted with the following remarks: [I]t's clear to me this has weighed heavily on his mind. His facial expression, voice tones clearly shows the Court that his views would interfere with his willingness and ability to follow the law and that he would never be able to vote for the death penalty. To the extent that Jones voiced such strong religious beliefs against the death penalty, and exhibited a clear aversion to sitting in judgment of his fellow man, the state was justified in challenging him for cause. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 798(2)(b) provides that a prospective juror is properly excused when his attitude toward the death penalty would prevent, or substantially impair him from making an impartial decision as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. We find no error in the trial court granting the State's challenge for cause.