Opinion ID: 2429686
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: for cause challenges

Text: Franklin next contends that the circuit court erred in failing to strike Ms. Melva Hicks, [1] Rev. Paul Daniel, and Ms. Nellie Hindman for cause. This argument has no merit. Initially, we have held that a claim of error relating to a challenge for cause is only preserved regarding jurors who actually sat on the jury after a challenge for cause was denied. See Pickens v. State, 301 Ark. 244, 783 S.W.2d 341 (1990), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1011, 110 S.Ct. 3257, 111 L.Ed.2d 766 (1990), citing Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (1988). Only one potential jurorMs. Hindman was seated after Franklin's peremptory strikes were fully utilized and a challenge for cause was unsuccessful. We agree with the circuit court that Ms. Hindman's answers did not render her unfit to serve on the jury. It is true that she had taught one of the deputy prosecutors in junior high school, but she had not seen him since that time, and she advised the court that it would have no bearing on her decision in this case. In Arkansas, we presume people comprising the venire are unbiased and qualified to serve. Fleming v. State, 284 Ark. 307, 681 S.W.2d 390 (1984). The burden is on the contestant to prove otherwise, and we will not disturb a circuit court's ruling absent an abuse of discretion. Id; Butler v. State, 303 Ark. 380, 797 S.W.2d 435 (1990). We cannot say, based on what has been presented to us, that that discretion was abused in this instance.