Opinion ID: 1311026
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Pauline Davis

Text: Breard contends that the trial court erred in refusing to exclude Pauline Davis from the jury for cause. During voir dire, Davis indicated that her impartiality in fixing punishment might be affected by photographs of the victim and of the crime scene. She further indicated, however, that she would consider any photographs admitted into evidence along with other evidence, including evidence in mitigation. Davis also stated that a person who committed a murder probably would commit acts of violence in the future, but she said that this would depend upon the reasons for the murder. Davis further stated that, even if she found that the defendant was dangerous, she would consider all the evidence, including that in mitigation, before she decided what would be the appropriate punishment. The trial court described Davis as being very honest and serious and concluded that she could follow the law and the evidence and would not automatically impose the death penalty on any particular set of facts. Giving the trial court's findings the deference to which they are entitled, we will not disturb the findings on appeal. Therefore, we hold that the court did not err in refusing to exclude Davis from the jury for cause.