Opinion ID: 2067933
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Refused Challenges

Text: [¶ 48] Holland argues in a footnote that, after the court granted challenges for cause, 13.5% of the remaining jury pool admitted to feeling intimidated by or uncomfortable around African-Americans and that, despite his objection, the court did not strike these potential jurors, two of whom sat on Holland's traverse jury. Holland argues that, as a result, the court violated his right to the effective use of peremptory strikes and his right to a fair trial. [¶ 49] We review the trial court's finding of juror impartiality for clear error, State v. Rollins, 2008 ME 189, ¶ 11, 961 A.2d 546, 549, and the conduct of voir dire for an abuse of discretion, State v. Lowry, 2003 ME 38, ¶ 7, 819 A.2d 331, 333. [¶ 50] As we recently stated: A missed opportunity to exercise a peremptory challenge does not by itself give a party the right to a new trial. There is no per se rule mandating the exclusion of a juror based on alleged bias or partiality. Rather, the test for determining whether a missed opportunity to use a peremptory challenge warrants a new trial is whether, when all the facts are known, actual bias or partiality is shown. Rollins, 2008 ME 189, ¶ 20, 961 A.2d at 551; cf. State v. McLean, 2002 ME 171, ¶ 16, 815 A.2d 799, 805 (holding that the court's failure to allow the defendant to exercise peremptory challenges in accordance with the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure constitutes reversible error without a showing of prejudice). [¶ 51] In this case, the court did not limit Holland's right to exercise peremptory challenges as discussed in McLean, 2002 ME 171, ¶ 16, 815 A.2d at 805. Thus, to determine whether the court impaired Holland's right to use his peremptory strikes effectively, we must consider whether the court improperly denied Holland's challenges of the relevant potential jurors for cause and whether that resulted in actual prejudice to Holland. [¶ 52] When considering whether to grant a party's challenge for cause, the determination of existence of prejudice is for the trial court to make. Rollins, 2008 ME 189, ¶ 16, 961 A.2d at 550 (quotation marks and alteration omitted). A trial court's determination that the juror remained impartial will stand unless it is clear to this [C]ourt that no competent evidence supports that decision. Id. ¶ 11, 961 A.2d at 549 (quotation marks omitted) (stating that the court's determination is accorded substantial deference because of the court's ability to observe the juror and assess credibility). [¶ 53] When a juror's impartiality is questioned, the court should interview the juror to determine whether it is satisfied with the juror's ability to set aside whatever impressions or opinions the juror had of the witness and to participate in reaching a verdict based on the evidence and the law. Id. ¶ 12, 961 A.2d at 549 (quotation marks and alteration omitted); Lowry, 2003 ME 38, ¶¶ 4, 9, 819 A.2d at 333, 334 (stating that a trial court must conduct or permit further questioning concerning potential jurors' possible partiality in order to provide an adequate factual basis to rule on a challenge of those jurors for cause in a case in which the court denied the defendant's repeated requests for additional voir dire and her challenges for cause). [¶ 54] The fact that a juror assures the court that the juror can remain impartial is significant to the court's determination as to whether a juror can in fact remain impartial. Rollins, 2008 ME 189, ¶ 12, 961 A.2d at 549. However, a juror's claim of an ability to remain impartial is not always adequate and is but one consideration. Lowry, 2003 ME 38, ¶ 8, 819 A.2d at 334. [¶ 55] The court in this case granted the State's and/or Holland's challenges for cause related to the questionnaire with respect to approximately thirty-three potential jurors. Of the remaining jurors, Holland challenged four for cause because they had answered a question indicating that they felt anxious around or intimidated by African-Americans. These four potential jurors also stated that they did not think their feelings would make it more difficult for them to be fair and impartial. The court did not interview the four jurors to further probe their feelings about African-Americans or their ability to remain impartial. However, the court did ask all of the remaining potential jurors if, because of their own beliefs or philosophy, they could not provide Holland with a presumption of innocence. No jurors responded that they could not accord Holland and the presumption of innocence. At the end of questioning by the court, the court asked whether Holland requested that any additional questions be asked of the jurors. Holland stated he did not request additional questions. [15] [¶ 56] The assurance of the four challenged jurors as to their impartiality is competent evidence supporting the court's decision to deny Holland's challenge of these four for cause. See Rollins, 2008 ME 189, ¶¶ 11-12, 961 A.2d at 549; cf. Lowry, 2003 ME 38, ¶ 8, 819 A.2d at 334. Although the court might have interviewed the four potential jurors further, it expressly invited the jurors to respond if they thought they could not be impartial for any reason. Furthermore, the court gave Holland an opportunity to request additional questions of the jurors, which Holland declined. [16] This distinguishes this case from Lowry in which the court had denied the defendant's repeated requests to conduct follow-up questioning to discover the basis for answers that potential jurors had previously given that could call their impartiality into question. Lowry, 2003 ME 38, ¶¶ 3-4, 819 A.2d at 333. [¶ 57] The court did not err in its determination that the four challenged jurors could be impartial when it denied Holland's challenge for cause to these four prospective jurors. See Rollins, 2008 ME 189, ¶¶ 16, 19-21, 961 A.2d at 550, 551 (holding that the defendant's right to exercise her peremptory challenges was not violated when the court allowed impaneled jurors to remain, even though they disclosed their connection to a State witness only after being impaneled, when competent evidence supported the court's finding that the jurors could be impartial).