Opinion ID: 2343191
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: appellant's challenges for cause (# 19)

Text: Appellant argues that erroneous rulings on his challenges for cause denied him the full use of his peremptory challenges. Appellant identifies ten (10) prospective jurors that he argues the trial court should have excused because of their alleged exposure to pretrial publicity or their inability to consider the full range of authorized punishments, mitigation evidence, or to focus their full attentions on the case. We have examined the transcript of general and individual voir dire, and considering the voir dire as a whole, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's challenges for cause. The question of whether a juror should be excused for cause is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Thompson v. Commonwealth, Ky., 862 S.W.2d 871, 874 (1993). And, because the trial court occupies a superior position to evaluate whether, in light of all of the evidence, the prospective juror can conform his views to the requirements of the law and render a fair and impartial verdict, Mabe v. Commonwealth, Ky., 884 S.W.2d 668, 671 (1994), a trial court's rulings on challenges for cause will not be reversed on appeal unless ... clearly erroneous. Foley v. Commonwealth, Ky., 953 S.W.2d 924, 932 (1997). See also Stopher v. Commonwealth, Ky., 57 S.W.3d 787, 797 (2001) (Giving due deference to the opportunity of the trial court to observe the demeanor of the prospective jurors and understand the substance of their answers to voir dire questions .... ), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1059, 122 S.Ct. 1921, 152 L.Ed.2d 829 (2002); Mabe, 884 S.W.2d at 671. From our review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings. The record here demonstrates a thorough voir dire examination by the court and counsel and carefully considered rulings on appellant's challenges for cause.... [W]e find no error in the court's rulings. Id.