Opinion ID: 2625903
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury selection and denial of challenge for cause

Text: Iuli argues that the trial court erred in denying his challenge to dismiss prospective juror Carvalho for cause and, therefore, impaired Iuli's right to peremptory challenges because Carvalho repeatedly expressed his inability to be fair and impartial. We note at the outset that Iuli could not have suffered any actual prejudice by virtue of Carvalho's potential bias because Carvalho did not ultimately serve as a juror. Nevertheless, the right to exercise a peremptory challenge `is one of the most important of the rights secured to the accused in a criminal case ... [and] the denial or impairment of that right ... is reversible error not requiring a showing of prejudice.' Kauhi, 86 Hawai`i at 198, 948 P.2d at 1039 (quoting State v. Carvalho, 79 Hawai`i 165, 172, 880 P.2d 217, 224 (App.1994) (citation omitted, internal brackets omitted, internal brackets and some ellipses added)). This court must, therefore, examine [(1)] whether [Carvalho] was improperly passed for cause and, if so, [(2)] whether [Iuli's] right to exercise a peremptory challenge was denied or impaired. Kauhi, 86 Hawai`i at 198, 948 P.2d at 1039.
This court has previously stated that, [w]hen a juror is challenged on grounds that he has formed an opinion and cannot be impartial, the test is `whether the nature and strength of the opinion ... are such as in law necessarily ... raise the presumption of partiality.' State v. Graham, 70 Haw. 627, 633, 780 P.2d 1103, 1107 (1989) (quoting Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 156, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878)). The prevailing rule[, however,] allows a person with preconceived notions about a case to serve as a juror if he `can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.' Graham, 70 Haw. at 633, 780 P.2d at 1107 (citations omitted). In the present case, Carvalho admitted that his association with law enforcement would cause him to be biased. In response to the court's inquiry as to whether he would try to be fair and impartial, Carvalho replied that it may be very difficult to be fair and impartial. Tr. 4/9/01 at 15-16. In our view, Carvalho's agreement with the prosecutor that he could treat police officers like any other witness, in itself, did not adequately rehabilitate him as a prospective juror. Carvalho's responses to defense counsel's inquiries demonstrated that he had preconceived notions and partiality toward victims and police officers due to his association with law enforcement. For example, as noted above, he stated, All of my background says that the arrest wasn't made in vain. In response to defense counsel's question, So as you sit here and you look at Mr. Iuli, you go, well, he must have done something right, he wouldn't be sitting in the chair there, Carvalho nodded his head in the affirmative. Moreover, Carvalho explicitly stated that it would be a tough call as to whether he could be fair. His statement, I'll try to be honest, was ambiguous at best and certainly does not expressly signify, as the prosecution implies, that he would attempt to be fair and impartial. Furthermore, Carvalho did not assure the trial court that he would base his decision solely upon the evidence. See State v. Ibanez, 201 Ariz. 56, 31 P.3d 830, 832 (Ariz.Ct.App.2001) (stating that, if a prospective juror expresses serious doubts about her ability to be fair and impartial, she must be excused for cause, unless she ultimately assures the trial court that she will base her decision solely upon the evidence); cf. Graham, 70 Haw. at 635-36, 780 P.2d at 1108 (holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to excuse the prospective juror for cause because she expressly stated that she would try to be fair to the defendant and her responses during colloquy with the court dispelled the suggestion that she could not render a verdict based on the evidence). Carvalho's statements during voir dire were express declarations of bias. Carvalho did not affirmatively state that he could render a fair and impartial verdict. We need not decide, however, whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to excuse Carvalho for cause because, as we discuss infra, Iuli has failed to meet his burden of establishing that his right to exercise a peremptory challenge was denied or impaired.
In Kauhi , the defendant challenged the prospective juror for cause based upon the fact that the juror was a deputy prosecuting attorney, who was employed by the same office that was prosecuting him. Kauhi, 86 Hawai`i at 197-98, 948 P.2d at 1038-39. Satisfied that the prospective juror's responses during voir dire demonstrated his ability to be impartial, the trial judge denied the defendant's challenge for cause. Id. at 198, 948 P.2d at 1039. The defendant exercised his last peremptory challenge to excuse the prospective juror. Thereafter, he requested two additional peremptory challenges (which the trial court denied) and identified the jurors against whom he would utilize those challenges. Id. Under these circumstances, this court held that the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in failing to excuse the prospective juror in light of his employment and that the trial court's error foreclosed the defendant from peremptorily challenging at least one of two additional prospective jurors. This court, therefore, held that the defendant's right to exercise his peremptory challenge was denied or impaired, reversed his conviction, and remanded the case for a new trial. Id. at 200, 948 P.2d at 1041. We cannot say, under the circumstances of this case, that Iuli has met his burden of establishing that his right to exercise a peremptory challenge was denied or impaired. Unlike the defendant in Kauhi, Iuli made no proffer that he would have excused another prospective juror had he not been forced to exercise one of his peremptory challenges to excuse Carvalho, nor did he request an additional peremptory challenge. See United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 317, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000) (holding that defendant's right to exercise peremptory challenges was not denied or impaired where defendant (1) never asserted at trial that he wished to strike some other juror with the peremptory challenge he was forced to use and (2) did not question the impartiality of the jury as finally composed). We, therefore, hold that Iuli has failed to demonstrate that his right to exercise his peremptory challenges was impaired or denied.