Opinion ID: 2632228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: dismissal of jurors

Text: Appellant also argues the trial court erred in dismissing juror number 50 and juror number 38 for cause. [323] The State counters that these jurors were properly dismissed for cause. [324] The process of death qualifying a jury in a capital case has consistently been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. [325] Jurors may be excused for cause if their views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties as jurors in accordance with the court's instructions and the jurors' oath. [326] This Court has affirmed the trial court's removal of such a juror where the juror's religious convictions would not allow her to impose the death penalty. [327] In this case, the State challenged juror number 50 for cause and the trial court dismissed her because her responses to questions from both the prosecuting attorneys and defense counsel indicated her religious convictions would not allow her to impose the death penalty, and that, if life without parole were a sentencing option, she would vote for that option. [328] In consideration of her stated religious views, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in excusing juror number 50 for cause. Similarly, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in granting the State's challenge for cause to juror number 38. Juror number 38 stated he would require 100% proof before he could impose the death penalty. [329] Because proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require 100% proof and, after repeated questioning by the court the juror did not seem to grasp the difference between the two standards of proof, the court granted the State's motion to excuse juror number 38 for cause. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.