Opinion ID: 2532479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the trial court erred in failing to excuse jurors for cause.

Text: ¶ 10. The determination of whether a juror is fair or impartial is a judicial question, and it will not be set aside except where there is a finding that the determination clearly appears to be wrong. West v. State, 820 So.2d 668, 671 (Miss.2001) (citing Carr v. State, 555 So.2d 59, 60 (Miss.1989)). [T]his Court will treat with deference a venire person's assertions of impartiality. Barfield v. State, 22 So.3d 1175, 1184-85 (Miss.2009) (citing Scott v. Ball, 595 So.2d 848, 850 (Miss. 1992)). ¶ 11. Tapper asserts that the trial court erred in failing to excuse three jurors for cause. He also contends that it was error for the trial court to grant a challenge for cause by the State. Specifically, Tapper argues that jurors number 6, 9, and 31 should have been struck for cause because they each declared that Tapper should have to prove his innocence in clear contradiction to Tapper's fundamental right not to testify. The State moved to strike juror number 23 for cause, and the trial court granted this challenge because that juror's brother had been prosecuted by the same [prosecutor's] office and tried by the same judge for fondling, and the juror stated that he did not believe his brother's trial was fair. Tapper, however, asserts that the disparate treatment by the trial court of defense counsel's motions as compared to the State's motion cannot be reconciled. Tapper's argument with respect to juror number 23 is simply without merit. Any juror shall be excluded ... if the court be of opinion that he cannot try the case impartially, and the exclusion shall not be assignable for error. Miss.Code Ann. § 13-5-79 (Rev. 2002). ¶ 12. Tapper also ultimately challenged jurors number 6, 9, and 31 peremptorily. A prerequisite to Tapper's claim on appeal is a showing that he had exhausted all of his peremptory challenges and that the incompetent juror was forced upon him by the trial court's erroneous ruling. Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 635, 639 (Miss. 1988); see Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81, 88, 108 S.Ct. 2273, 101 L.Ed.2d 80 (1988) (the loss of a peremptory challenge does not constitute a violation of the constitutional right to an impartial jury). ¶ 13. During the jury-selection conference, defense counsel challenged jurors number 6, 9, and 31 for cause, and after hearing arguments from the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial judge refused to remove these jurors for cause. Eventually, defense counsel exercised peremptory challenge D-2 on juror number 6, peremptory challenge D-4 on juror number 9, and peremptory challenge D-10 [4] on juror number 31. Therefore, none of these challenged jurors sat on the trial jury. ¶ 14. In Christmas v. State, 10 So.3d 413, 423 (Miss.2009), we reiterated: This Court has explained that a prerequisite to presentation of a claim of a denial of constitutional rights due to denial of a challenge for cause is a showing that the defendant had exhausted all of his peremptory challenges and that the incompetent juror was forced by the trial court's erroneous ruling to sit on the jury. Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 635, 639 (Miss.1988) Christmas, 10 So.3d at 423 (emphasis added) (citing Mettetal v. State, 615 So.2d 600, 603 (Miss.1993)). ¶ 15. While the record reveals that Tapper had exercised all of his twelve peremptory challenges, Tapper is unable to show that any of these three challenged jurors were forced upon him by eventually sitting on the trial jury. Christmas, 10 So.3d at 423. Thus, Tapper's claim must fail. After defense counsel exercised peremptory challenge D-10 on juror number 31, Tapper, through counsel, exercised peremptory challenge D-11 on juror number 33 (juror number 32 had been struck for cause), and peremptory challenge D-12 on juror number 41. Therefore, according to the record, Tapper, through counsel, accepted as members of the trial jury juror number 36 and juror number 38, before exercising peremptory challenge D-12 on juror number 41. ¶ 16. For these reasons, we find this issue to be without merit.