Opinion ID: 2463945
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Venireperson Kingry

Text: During the state's voir dire, venireperson Kingry expressed doubt that she could vote for the death penalty. She vacillated under questioning by the prosecution, then the defense, as to whether she could follow the law in a capital case. She stated that the only way I could vote for it is if I had no doubt, you know, in my mind and that she would require the prosecutor to prove the case beyond all possible doubt before she could consider the death penalty. When asked if she could sign a death verdict if she were to serve as the foreperson, she responded no, no. The court sustained the state's motion to strike Ms. Kingry for cause. The record supports the trial court's ruling. A juror's equivocation about his ability to follow the law in a capital case together with an unequivocal statement that he could not sign a verdict of death can provide a basis for the trial court to exclude the venireperson from the jury. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d at 840; see also State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901, 914 (Mo. banc 1997), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 118 S.Ct. 377, 139 L.Ed.2d 294 (1997); Kreutzer, 928 S.W.2d at 866-867. Again, this situation required the exercise of the judgment and discretion of the trial court in determining whether Ms. Kingry should have been stricken for cause. The trial court indicated its judgment by stating: I tell you what, I think I'm going to strike for cause, but let me tell you why. It is  she vacillated. She went back and forth. And I listened. But the whole thing seems to me is she says  And I think that probably the defense is correct, I think you rehabilitated her to the point that she says, no, for the first stage, for guilt or innocence, it's  beyond a reasonable doubt is fine. But if I'm going to vote for the death penalty, which is one of the authorized voting, they would have to  I would have to have no doubt. And I don't think it requires no doubt. The law requires beyond a reasonable doubt on even that one. So I think on that, as I have a belief in watching her that  you know, that  I just have  you know, I have an impression that she'd be unable to apply the law in this case when it comes to second stage in the instruction. The trial court did not err in striking venireperson Kingry for cause. Point 1 is denied.