Opinion ID: 1099739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in excusing venire person Pepper for cause.

Text: ś 92. The brothers argue that the record does not support the trial judge's exclusion of venire person Susie Pepper (Pepper) and request a reversal by this Court. The brothers state that a juror's reservation or difficulty in sitting on a jury is not sufficient grounds to support a challenge for cause. In support of their proposition, the brothers cite Martin v. State, 592 So.2d 987, 988 (Miss.1991) for this Court's holding that: In order to strike a juror for cause there must be a clear showing that the prospective juror would be unable to follow the court's instructions and obey his oath; a juror's views alone do not constitute grounds for a challenge. Additionally, the brothers cite Woodward v. State, 533 So.2d 418, 424 (Miss.1988), for the proposition that a judge's ruling to exclude a juror, based upon an inability to sit in judgment, is upheld only where it is supported by the record. ś 93. The trial court has wide latitude in deciding whether to excuse a potential juror, including an exclusion for cause. Poe v. State, 739 So.2d 405, 409 (Miss.App.1999). The trial judge has discretion in determining whether to excuse a juror and such decision will not be set aside unless it is clearly wrong. Wells v. State, 698 So.2d 497, 501 (Miss.1997). This Court held the following in Coverson v. State, 617 So.2d 642, 645 (Miss.1993): On substantive grounds, statutory and case law empowered the judge with broad discretion to determine whether a prospective juror can be impartial-notwithstanding the juror's admission under oath that he or she can be impartial. See Burt v. State, 493 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Miss.1986) (It is well founded that the trial judge has the discretion to excuse potential jurors for cause if the court believes the juror could not try the case impartially.) (citing cases); Miss.Code Ann. § 13-5-79 (1972). On procedural grounds, once the judge exercised his discretion and determined that the jurors probably could not be impartial, then the determination may not be assigned on appeal as an error: Any person ... who will make oath that he [or she] is impartial ... shall be competent as a juror in any criminal case.... Any juror shall be excluded however, if the court be of opinion that he [or she] cannot try the case impartially, and the exclusion shall not be assignable for error. Miss.Code Ann. § 13-5-79 (1972). ś 94. In the case before this Court, the State questioned the venire and asked if anyone would have trouble being fair and impartial. The following exchanges occurred: Ms. Perkins (State): I don't believe I could. My name is Helen Perkins. I don't believe I could select not guilty or guilty. Mr. Powell: Okay. Thank you, Ms. Perkins. You think you would have a hard time sitting in judgment? Ms. Perkins: Yes. Mr. Powell: Anyone else? Ms. Pepper? Ms. Pepper: Susie Pepper, same response. Later in the voir dire, the defense asked the venire whether anyone would have trouble setting aside the fact that three white men were being tried in the death of a black man. Pepper stated that since I know these people personally; I would feel mighty uncomfortable. However, she could set that aside to be fair. The State requested Pepper to be struck because she could not make a decision. The trial judge granted the challenge for cause due to Pepper's inability to make a decision. ś 95. Here the trial court, in its discretion, determined that Pepper was excused for cause. Accordingly, the law clearly does not allow an assignment of error for cause on appeal. Coverson, 617 So.2d at 645; Miss.Code Ann. § 13-5-79 (1972). Notwithstanding this fact, Pepper stated she could set aside the circumstances of three white men being tried for the death of a black man. The ability to set aside the ethnic make-up of the parties involved in the case does not address Pepper's indecisiveness. ś 96. After reviewing the trial court transcript, this Court cannot say that the trial court was clearly wrong in its determination to exclude juror Pepper for cause based on her inability to sit in judgment and render a decision in the case presented at trial. This issue is without merit.