Opinion ID: 1817269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: did the court err in refusing to remove juror mayhall for cause?

Text: During voir dire defense counsel asked potential jurors whether they were acquainted with Deputy Sheriff Terry Doles, who was to testify for the state. Ms. Mayhall indicated she had known Doles approximately seven years and saw him once or twice a week. When asked whether she could remain impartial should there be a conflict between Doles' testimony and that of another witness, she replied, I would believe Mr. Doles because I know him personally. Defense counsel moved to strike Mayhall for cause. The court responded, Well, Ms. Mayhall said she would listen to both sides before she decided and I will take her word for it. Frank, Sr. now contends this ruling was reversible error. The defendant in Gilliard v. State, 428 So.2d 576 (Miss. 1983), raised a similar argument. In that case defendant had six unexercised peremptory challenges at the time he accepted a full panel. We held, The trial court will not be put in error because of failure to permit a challenge for cause as long as peremptory challenges remain unused. 428 So.2d at 580. Since the peremptory challenges were not included in the record, we cannot ascertain whether the defendant had unexercised peremptory challenges when he accepted the panel. Therefore we do not hold the trial court in error for failure to strike Mayhall for cause. We also note the trial court was of the opinion the juror would consider both sides of the case before reaching a conclusion. We next observe Officer Doles, with whom Mayhall was acquainted, testified only briefly as to the chain of custody of State's Exhibits 18 and 19 (rope and tape taken from the body). Since defense counsel did not cross-examine this witness, we do not think Doles' credibility was in crucial issue; from this we conclude Mayhall's acquaintance with Doles had no bearing on this case. We think proposition VIII is without merit.