Opinion ID: 2514211
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Challenges exercised by defendant

Text: While eight jurors were excused for cause based on opinions formed during pretrial publicity, no other jurors were challenged on this basis. The defense used 11 of its 12 peremptory challenges. We have previously held if a defendant does not exercise all peremptory challenges it is presumed that he or she was satisfied with the jury. Rice, 120 Wash.2d at 558-59, 844 P.2d 416. Clark claims he was not satisfied with the jury, but tactically withheld his last peremptory challenge because, as a result of the method of selection, Clark knew he would get a putatively more adverse juror if he used his last peremptory challenge (presumably on Ms. Preston). [2] Clark analyzes this factor as if he had in effect exercised all of his peremptory challenges. Clark's argument in this regard goes to the trial court's discretion in denying forcause challenges of jurorsanother issue. Further it is clear that a failure of the defendant to exhaust his peremptory challenges has factored into change of venue analysis in several previous cases. See, e.g., Rice, 120 Wash.2d at 557-59, 844 P.2d 416; State v. Jeffries, 105 Wash.2d 398, 409, 717 P.2d 722 (1986); State v. Maupin, 63 Wash. App. 887, 822 P.2d 355 (1992). This is not a situation where Clark ran out of peremptory challenges trying to seat a jury that was not biased against him due to pretrial publicity.