Opinion ID: 1718692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Kari Ellis

Text: Defendant argues that Kari Ellis should have been struck for cause based on her predisposition in favor of the death penalty. A review of the record reveals that while Ellis was questioned in Pool 2, Panel 4. While Ellis's answers to the judge and the prosecutor reflected a neutral position regarding capital punishment, under defense questioning, Ellis disclosed the sentiments for which counsel sought to remove her: I have always been for the death penalty and I am probably more convinced that it is more of the way to go in some instances than maybe what I was whenever I was younger and a little bit more naive to what goes on. Ellis conceded that she is probably a little bit colder than what [she] used to be. In Ellis's view, the world is not necessarily a nice place to live anymore. Ellis attributed her evolution on the subject of capital punishment: I live in the real world. I see  you know, I read the paper, see the news much more than I did whenever I was younger. When I was younger I was much more naive and much more sheltered than what I am now that I'm out on my own and know what goes on in the world. Ellis suggested that she while she has always favored the death penalty, she probably favored it a bit more than she did as a younger person, which appears to be what she was trying to tell counsel when she ranked herself as about a seven on a scale of one to ten in which ten would most strongly favor capital punishment. She added that the mitigating factors would have to be very high before I would go with life over death. Thereafter, defense counsel challenged Ellis for cause based on her strong views in favor of the death penalty, and that mitigating circumstances would have to be very, very strong for her to consider life. Counsel assessed that Ellis was not a person that could keep an open mind regarding the penalty until she heard everything because ... she would already be in favor of death when she started the penalty phase. The trial court disagreed and denied the challenge for cause for the following reasons: I think Ms. Ellis was straightforward. If you looked at her earlier testimony about the media and everything else she tried to let us know what was inside her, she did not keep anything back, and she tried to answer the questions truthfully as the best she understood them. I have down here she's ... strong spoken but polite and has it all together, meaning that she can articulate herself well and her feelings. Here she clearly told me, after I explained it, she could follow the law and she could obey the Court's instructions, she could consider all of the mitigating factors and that she could vote for death or she could vote for life. And she committed to me, and I believed her, that she would not make a decision until she's heard all of the evidence.... Her testimony demonstrates to me that she has a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially and according to the law and the evidence and that her inclinations would not impair her at all. That a juror has personal predispositions towards the death penalty does not render her unfit for service on a capital jury if she is nevertheless willing to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances in reaching a sentencing verdict on the basis of the evidence presented at trial. State v. Higgins, 03-1980, pp. 30-31 (La.4/1/05), 898 So.2d 1219, 1238; State v. Lucky, 96-1687, pp. 7-8 (La.4/13/99), 755 So.2d 845, 850. That being the case, no abuse of discretion is apparent in the trial court's denial of the challenge for cause as to Ellis. Ellis' name was never called for questioning in any of the subsequent rounds of general voir dire before completion of the jury panel. Accordingly, the defense did not have to use one of its peremptory challenges to excuse Ellis, and thereby waived on appeal any complaint about the trial court's ruling.