Opinion ID: 1151655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: gary theriot

Text: The defendant contends the trial court erred in refusing his challenge for cause on the grounds that Gary Theriot was reluctant to accept intoxication either as a defense to specific intent in the guilt phase or as a mitigating circumstance in the penalty phase. When asked his opinion of the death penalty, Mr. Theriot responded: If a person is going to kill someone, and if it's in his state of mind, I believe he should get the same punishment. There's no reason why two people should kill each other. Further questioning by defense counsel elicited responses which indicated Mr. Theriot would be unable to consider mitigating circumstances. The state was later able to rehabilitate Mr. Theriot by explaining the differences between the two phases of trial and what was expected of Mr. Theriot in each phase. At that point, Mr. Theriot responded he would be willing to consider mitigating evidence before deciding whether to impose a sentence of death. He indicated he could vote for either life imprisonment or the death penalty at the penalty phase of the trial, depending on the evidence presented. Defense counsel re-examined Mr. Theriot at length. In this exchange, Mr. Theriot reiterated he would consider all the evidence before making a determination of guilt or innocence and in determining the appropriate penalty. Mr. Theriot also stated defense counsel had misled him in their earlier exchange. After discussing intoxication as a defense to specific intent in the guilt phase, the following exchange occurred: MR. THERIOT: Yes, I would consider the fact of intoxication on making my decision. I would have to consider it, yes. DEFENSE COUNSEL: But is your support for the death penalty so vigor [sic] that that would cloud the consideration of the mitigating factors? MR. THERIOT: I'd probably say yes. Vol. 8, p. 1773 The state again attempted to rehabilitate the juror and elicited the response that Mr. Theriot's philosophy regarding the death penalty was not so strong it would outweigh his ability to give consideration to mitigating factors. The defense challenged Mr. Theriot for cause. The trial court decided to question Mr. Theriot to clear up any confusion. Prior to the court's questioning, counsel for the state and defense agreed that prevent was a synonym for preclude. COURT: If at the end of the trial, and after you have heard all of the evidence, the lawyer's arguments to you and my instructions to you on the law, and at that time you become convinced that the defendant has proved to you that he was so intoxicated that it prevented him from having specific intent, would you give him the benefit of that, and either find him not guilty or guilty of some lesser charge which would not require specific intent, and I need a yes or a no from you on that, sir. Do you understand my question? MR. THERIOT: Yes, sir. COURT: Are there any words or any language that gives you trouble that I can maybe translate for you MR. THERIOT: I understand what you're saying, it's just a hard question to answer. COURT: Yes, sir. But I need an answer from you, either yes or no. MR. THERIOT: I would say, yes. COURT: Alright. Thank you, sir. Vol. 8, pp. 1778-79 The trial court denied the defense's challenge for cause, finding Mr. Theriot has stated point blank that he would give the benefit of intoxication. Defense counsel objected to the ruling and exercised a peremptory challenge against Mr. Theriot. A challenge for cause should be granted when a prospective juror makes clear he or she expresses a predisposition as to the outcome of a trial. The challenge is properly denied, however, where subsequent questioning of a prospective juror indicates he or she is able to disregard previous views and make a decision based solely on the evidence presented at trial. Lee, 559 So.2d at 1318. When assessing whether a challenge for cause should be granted, the trial judge must look at the juror's responses during [his or] her entire testimony, not just `correct', isolated answers; or, for that matter, `incorrect', isolated answers. Id., 559 So.2d at 1318 (citations omitted). Although Mr. Theriot's initial answers to defense questioning indicated he would be unable to follow the law and consider the mitigating effects of the defense of intoxication in either the guilt or penalty phase of trial, a review of his entire testimony shows he would assess all of the evidence presented before making a decision. Part of the confusion of his examination stemmed from defense counsel's questions, as counsel acknowledged in the following exchange: MR. THERIOT: I said I'm sorry if I confused so many people. DEFENSE COUNSEL: No, I think I was the person who did the confusing. Vol. 8, p. 1775 Mr. Theriot was successfully rehabilitated by the questioning of the trial court. The challenge for cause was properly denied.