Opinion ID: 1138376
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: assignment of error ii (voir dire)

Text: Defendant contends that the trial judge erred in denying his challenge for cause of prospective juror, Gilford Warner. He argues that he was denied his constitutional right to his full peremptory challenges when he was required to exercise one of his twelve challenges to excuse Warner as a potential juror. At the commencement of the voir dire examination of six prospective jury members, the jurors were asked if they knew the victim, Curley Hanchett, and Warner answered affirmatively. Warner stated that Hanchett had been his biology teacher in the tenth grade. Upon further questioning by the trial judge about this relationship, Warner testified that Hanchett helped me out a lot. Warner also indicated that he had heard about the victim's death on the news about two weeks before. When the trial judge asked Warner if he had formed any conclusions or opinions based upon what he knew or had heard, Warner replied, I got my own opinion. I think you know, an eye for an eye. When further asked if he would be predisposed toward the state because he knew the victim and the victim had been his teacher, Warner answered, Probably so. When questioned further, Warner stated, Well, like I said he wasLike I say I was in the tenth grade and I was having hard times and he helped me out, you know. More like a friend. The trial judge inquired whether it would be difficult for him to be fair and impartial because of the relationship and Warner replied, I can't say without evidence. At the end of this colloquy when the trial judge asked Warner once again if he could set aside his feelings and be fair and impartial, Warner responded, I can't say. I don't know. When Warner was subsequently questioned by the prosecuting attorney, Warner admitted that thirteen years had passed since he had been in Hanchett's tenth grade class and that he had not seen or spoken to the victim since that time. When asked whether he could set aside his friendship and knowledge and make a decision based solely upon what he would hear from the witness stand and whether he could return a verdict of not guilty, he replied affirmatively. Last, defense counsel questioned Warner about his relationship with the victim. When asked whether Hanchett was his favorite teacher, Warner responded that he was real understanding, you know. And I would say he influenced me a lot, yeah. When defense counsel asked if Hanchett was a teacher that had a significant impact on him, Warner responded, Sure. Yet Warner later responded to defense counsel that he would listen to the judge's instructions, if selected, and make every effort to decide the case according to the law and the evidence. The prosecutor next questioned Warner about the penalty phase of trial. Warner responded that he could impose either life imprisonment or the death penalty. He answered affirmatively that he could follow the judge's instructions on the law and could be fair to the defendant and the state. All of the jurors were questioned about their opinion in regard to depression as potential mitigating evidence. Warner responded that he would not consider depression to be mitigation. He further explained, Life's tough you know. We've all been dealt tough cards and you got to deal with them. And we live through them day to day, and I think depression is one of them. However, when defense counsel further explained to him that depression would be used as a mitigating factor towards determining an appropriate punishment, Warner responded that without the facts, he did not know but he would probably have some difficulty. Toward the end of the voir dire, defense counsel explained that the defense has no obligation to put defendant on the stand or to put any evidence on. When the panel was asked if anyone had a problem with the fact that they may not hear from defendant during the course of the trial and whether that might impact on their ability to serve on the jury, the following colloquy occurred between defense counsel and Warner: BY MR. SANCHEZ: Q Mr. Warner? A I thinkI think in any case, should be spoke up, you know, through hisself you know. And if I was the prosecuting attorney I'd think I'd want to direct questions to him, you know. I, myself, would want, you know, to ask the ask [sic] questions directly to him. Q And if I as Bartholomew's lawyer make the decision and he doesn't testify in these proceedings, would that fact impact on your ability to decide the case on the evidence? Would you stillIn the back of your mind would you feel like there's evidence that you're entitled to that you didn't hear from, that would impact on your decision? A Yes. Q And so if he doesn't testify that will that will make it more difficult for you to make your decision based solely on the evidence that you hear? A Yes. Q Because you will think that there's some evidence that you want to hear that you didn't. A Right. Q And that would have an impact on your ability to sit as a juror in this case, would it not? A Yes, it would. ... Q And so, it would be fair to say that you areyou would be predisposed if we decide not to put Bart on, you would be predisposed then to think that if he didn't testify there must [be] something he's hiding. A Right. Q You would feel because of that that you didn't get all of the evidence that you were entitled to and that would make you more likely to side or to consider the evidence or to convict based on the fact that he didn't testify? A It would leave me confused, definitely. Q And that would be something that would have a direct impact on your ability to be a fair juror in this case, would it not? A Sure. Q I appreciate it, Mr. Warner. Pass it over to Mrs. Bishop. No further questions were asked nor responses elicited from Warner following this colloquy. At the end of the voir dire of the entire panel, defense counsel challenged Warner for cause. The trial judge refused to excuse Warner. Defense counsel objected to the court's ruling. Defendant used one of his peremptory challenges to excuse Warner from the jury panel. Defendant used all of his twelve peremptory challenges. La. Const. art. I, § 17 guarantees that [t]he accused shall have the right to full voir dire examination of prospective jurors and to challenge jurors peremptorily. The number of challenges shall be fixed by law. La.Code Crim.P. art. 799 provides the defendant in a death penalty case with twelve peremptory challenges. Therefore, when a defendant uses all of his peremptory challenges, a trial court's erroneous ruling depriving him of one of his peremptory challenges constitutes a substantial violation of his constitutional and statutory rights, requiring reversal of the conviction and sentence. State v. Maxie, 93-2158, p. 15 (La. 4/10/95); 653 So.2d 526; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, (La. 1/14/94); 630 So.2d 1278, 1280; State v. McIntyre, 365 So.2d 1348, 1351 (La. 1978). A defendant must object at the time of the ruling on the refusal to sustain a challenge for cause of a prospective juror. La.Code Crim.P. art. 800. Prejudice is presumed when a challenge for cause is erroneously denied by a trial court and the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges. To prove there has been reversible error warranting reversal of the conviction and sentence, defendant need only show (1) the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause; and (2) the use of all his peremptory challenges. Robertson, 630 So.2d at 1281; State v. Ross, 623 So.2d 643, 644 (La.1993); State v. Comeaux, 514 So.2d 84, 93 (La.1987). The trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and his ruling will be reversed only when a review of the entire voir dire reveals the judge abused his discretion. Robertson, 630 So.2d at 1281; Ross, 623 So.2d at 644. Since defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges in this case, we are left only with the task of deciding whether the trial judge erred in denying defendant's challenge for cause of prospective juror Gilford Warner. La.Code Crim.P. art. 797 provides in pertinent part that the state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the grounds that: . . . . . (2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; (3) The relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or enmity between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel, is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict; (4) The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court; . . . . . In the instant case, defendant challenged Warner on several grounds. First, he challenged Warner on the basis of his personal relationship with the victim. Second, he challenged Warner based on his statements that he could not accept the law as given if defendant failed to take the stand in his behalf, that is, he could not give defendant the presumption of innocence. Additionally, defense counsel argued that Warner had a strong leaning toward imposing the death penalty (his comment an eye for an eye) and he expressed that he would have a problem with considering depression as a mitigating circumstance. We find, for the reasons set forth below, that the trial judge erred in failing to excuse Warner for cause based on Warner's statements that he could not accept the law as given if defendant failed to take the stand in his behalf, that is, that he could not give defendant the presumption of innocence. The failure to excuse Warner on this ground constitutes reversible error. Having found reversible error on this ground, we need not pass on whether the other grounds alleged for challenging Warner's ability to be a fair and impartial juror have merit. A review of the voir dire of Warner demonstrates a number of instances in which he told the court that if defendant failed to testify it would create an impact on his ability to sit as a juror and prompt him to be predisposed to think that defendant must be hiding something. Warner's final words on the issue came in response to defense counsel's query regarding whether he would be more likely to convict based on defendant's failure to testify. Warner asserted that it would leave him confused, definitely, and answered affirmatively that it would affect his ability to be a fair juror. There was no effort thereafter made by the court or the prosecution to rehabilitate this juror who had clearly stated his inability to follow the law in this regard. A trial judge's refusal to excuse a prospective juror for cause is not an abuse of discretion, notwithstanding that the juror has voiced an opinion seemingly prejudicial to the defense, where subsequently, on further inquiry or instruction, he has demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and evidence. State v. Welcome, 458 So.2d 1235 (La.1983), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1088, 105 S.Ct. 1856, 85 L.Ed.2d 152 (1985); State v. Passman, 345 So.2d 874, 880 (La.1977). However, where as here, there has been no attempt to rehabilitate Warner subsequent to his remarks expressing his opinion in this area, the challenge for cause should have been granted. The Fifth Amendment to the Unites States Constitution and Art. I, § 16 of the Louisiana Constitution protect a defendant from being forced to testify against himself. We have stated that it is an important part of voir dire examination to discover any prospective juror who may have difficulty understanding this right (the presumption of innocence) as well as to discover a juror who may hold it against a defendant who exercises the right. See State v. Lee, 559 So.2d 1310, 1316 (La.1990). Having failed to excuse Warner for cause based on this ground, the trial judge forced defendant to use one of his peremptory challenges. Since defendant used all of his peremptory challenges, the failure of the trial judge to excuse Warner for cause was an abuse of discretion and constitutes reversible error.