Opinion ID: 2391925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Violent Crime Victim Constitutes Challenge For Cause

Text: In this case, it is unnecessary to address the issue of Smith's mental capacity during Banther's trial but we expect that the Superior Court will comply with the statutory mandates of title 10, section 4509(a) and 4509(b)(5) of the Delaware Code in the future. We also need not decide whether her alleged use of cocaine and the pendency of the theft charges caused actual prejudice to Banther and, thus, constituted reversible error. [21] The cumulative appearance of these troubling circumstances in the background of one juror do, however, raise serious concerns about the adequacy of the current Superior Court's Juror Questionnaire and standard voir dire questions. The United States Supreme Court addressed the clear error standard of review in Anderson v. City of Bessemer City. [22] Under Anderson, appellate review for clear error requires not just deference to the fact finder's conclusions, but a very specific level of deference: If the [trial judge's] account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently. Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous. [23] An appellate court may reject the fact finder's choice between conflicting evidence only where there is something wrong with the choice. [24] When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the level of deference is even higher. [25] There are generally three ways in which a factual finding based on credibility could be clearly erroneous. [26] First, the accepted testimony could be incoherent or facially implausible. Second, the testimony could be contradicted by extrinsic evidence. Third, the finding itself could be internally inconsistent. In this case, the Superior Court's conclusions were clearly erroneous because the forelady's testimony was implausible, contradicted by extrinsic evidence, and internally inconsistent. The record is clear that after Banther's trial, Smith pled guilty to theft, tested positive for cocaine, and was hospitalized for mental health reasons. These uncontested facts were extant when Smith testified at the remand hearings. Individually and collectively these post-trial events vitiate the credibility of Smith's subjective assertions on remand that her grandfather's sexual abuse was never an issue for her and that she was confused when she originally testified that a sexual assault resulted in the birth of her son. Statements for medical diagnosis and treatment are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule because such statements are deemed to be inherently trustworthy. [27] It is undisputed that the medical records in this case reflect that the forelady on Banther's jury was sexually molested throughout her childhood by her grandfather, raped at the age of twelve and that a sexual assault eight years prior to Banther's trial resulted in the birth of her son. Nevertheless, she responded in the negative when she was asked on voir dire if she had been the victim of a violent crime. The Superior Court concluded that the long history of sexual abuse as a child by Smith's grandfather was true but would not have been a basis to challenge Smith for cause; was not persuaded the rape at age twelve actually happened; and that Smith was confused about the sexual assault that resulted in the birth of her son. None of those conclusions are supported by the objective medical records. Smith's prior medical records are consistent objective evidence that she had been the victim of violent crimes prior to Banther's trial. The expanded record supports a conclusion that the juror's incorrect answer to the voir dire question was purposefully untrue and not simply inadvertently inaccurate. [28] In Jackson, we observed that the impartial administration of justice is severely compromised when the juror's nondisclosure of material information during voir dire is deliberate. [29] The right of a defendant to a fair trial by a panel of impartial jurors is basic to our system of justice. [30] The United States Supreme Court has held that for the failure of a juror to answer accurately a question on voir dire to constitute reversible error, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to honestly answer a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. [31] During jury selection in a capital murder case, the answer to a question about being the victim of a violent crime is material. Banther has demonstrated that the forelady failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire  whether she had been the victim of a violent crime. [32] Banther has also demonstrated that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause. [33] Accordingly, we hold that Banther's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed by both the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, § 7 of the Delaware Constitution, was violated. [34] The United States Supreme Court has held that the presence of a biased juror introduces a structural defect that is not subject to a harmless error analysis. [35] Therefore, the judgments of the Superior Court must be reversed. Since this matter will be remanded for a new trial, we will address the other issues raised by Banther on appeal.