Opinion ID: 2623326
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prospective Juror Robert T.

Text: When Prospective Juror Robert T. stated during voir dire he was not completely sold on that death penalty, the trial court admonished him that his personal views were not to be taken into consideration and that he must follow the court's instructions. Robert T. responded that he could set aside his personal feelings and apply the law as the court explained it. But when the prosecutor asked him whether, in light of his convictions about the death penalty, he would be capable of deciding for himself to vote for the death penalty if that was what the evidence showed and the law indicated, Robert T. replied, I'm not positive I could, you know. And when the prosecutor asked, Wouldn't it be fair to say you just can't conceive of a situation where you'd vote for the death penalty?, he responded, I really don't think so. Given these responses to the prosecutor's questions, we are satisfied that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excused Robert T. for cause. Defendant argues that Robert T.'s response of I really don't think so meant he found the prosecutor's assessment of his inability to apply the death penalty in any setting to be inaccurate. This interpretation is untenable in light of Robert T.'s other comments. Equally unpersuasive is defendant's contention that the trial court improperly relied on answers to the unsworn questionnaire to excuse Harold G. and Robert T. As the record shows, these prospective jurors took the required oath before being orally examined, and they confirmed their questionnaire responses during that oral examination.