Opinion ID: 2575291
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Excusal of Prospective Juror R.R.

Text: In Prospective Juror R.R.'s questionnaire, he circled the Strongly Oppose response when asked his view concerning the death penalty. In response to a question regarding the circumstances under which the death penalty was inappropriate, he wrote, all. During voir dire, he confirmed he was morally, philosophically, and intellectually opposed to the death penalty, but also indicated he understood that if the aggravating circumstances substantially outweighed the mitigating circumstances, he would be required to vote for death. The prosecutor then clarified that the law never would require a juror to vote for death. Following this clarification, R.R. stated he [a]bsolutely always would vote for life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and if the aggravating evidence substantially outweighed the mitigating evidence, he would vote for life in [e]very instance. The prosecutor challenged Prospective Juror R.R. for cause under Witt, supra, 469 U.S. 412. Over defense objection, the trial court sustained the challenge, stating, I think it's abundantly clear after listening to this juror that when he finally realizes he has a freedom of choice after hearing the evidence, and that there is not going to be any directive as to which way he should vote, and the onus is on him and the choice is clearly his, he has indicated in every instance he would vote for life no matter what the evidence is. If given a choice, he would have to vote for life in prison without the possibility of parole.