Opinion ID: 2644969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Juror Pyles

Text: For his eighth point on appeal, Billy asserts that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to remove Juror Pyles, a part-time 911 operator, for cause because she worked at the sheriff’s office and was biased. After the circuit court denied Billy’s request to remove Pyles for cause, Billy used a peremptory strike and removed Pyles. Billy now asserts that he was forced to use his peremptory strike on Pyles, forcing him to accept Juror Blevins, whose brother-in-law was a reserve officer in the Randolph County Sheriff’s Office. Billy argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in not removing Pyles for cause. In order to challenge a juror’s presence on appeal, the appellant must have exhausted his peremptory challenges and must show that he was forced to accept a juror who should have been excused for cause. Willis v. State, 334 Ark. 412, 977 S.W.2d 890 (1998). In other words, Billy “must have asked the court to remove the juror for cause, and the court must have improperly denied the request.” Id. at 415, 977 S.W.2d at 894–95. Here, the record demonstrates that Billy did not challenge Juror Blevins for cause. Accordingly, Billy has failed to prove that the seated juror was forced on him or that she 37 Cite as 2013 Ark. 497 should have been excused for cause. Thus, Billy’s eighth point on appeal is without merit and we affirm the circuit court.