Opinion ID: 2525107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prospective Jurors Linda H., Martha C, Arthur R. and Lynn J.

Text: During the trial court's inquiry, Prospective Juror Linda H. announced, I'm against the death penalty. She agreed, however, she could set aside her personal opinion in serving as a juror. After describing the aiding and abetting and felony-murder doctrines, the prosecutor asked about Linda H.'s questionnaire comment that when a jury sentences someone to death, it's murder. Ms. H. confirmed her opposition, stating, I'm against the death penalty always. She stated she could not vote for death in any case. The court excused her for cause. During the trial court's inquiry of a later panel, the court asked Prospective Juror Martha C. about her questionnaire comment that, given the choice, she would always vote for life imprisonment without possibility of parole. She answered she did not think she could envision any set of circumstances that would prompt her to vote for death. Ms. C. also confirmed her questionnaire remark that if she sentenced someone to death, she would feel guilty for the rest of her life. She later told the prosecutor she did not think she could impose a sentence of death regardless of the evidence in this case. After hearing the prosecutor's description of aiding and abetting liability, Prospective Juror Arthur R. volunteered he would have a difficult time finding an aider and abettor guilty of first degree murder, and he could do so only where it was pretty clear that the person was really connected. Mr. R. admitted he was not sure whether he could vote for death, regardless of the evidence in this case. He stated, I rather feel that I would be inclined to not [impose a death sentence]. When asked further whether he could vote for death if you felt it was appropriate, he thought he would not [be] able to follow through. Prospective Juror Lynn J. volunteered he thought it might be best to limit capital punishment to premeditated and deliberate murders. When later questioned, Mr. J. confirmed his questionnaire statement that the death penalty should be limited to cases of mass murder, unusual cruelty, torture or murder while in prison. When asked if he could nevertheless vote for death in the instant case, which did not involve such factors, he answered affirmatively. When the prosecutor asked whether he could consider death as a penalty considering what you know about this case, the trial court sustained defendant's objection. Mr. J. averred he could vote for death if it involves torture or some activity that's at the highest level of crime. Upon further inquiry, Mr. J. agreed that neither murder in the commission of an attempted robbery nor murder by aiding and abetting met his standards for imposing death. Accordingly, he did not believe he could consider voting for death in this case. The trial court excused Prospective Jurors Martha C, Arthur R. and Lynn J. for cause.