Opinion ID: 2613515
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Denial of Motions to Strike Jurors for Cause

Text: Defendant claims that the trial judge erroneously declined to strike two jurors for cause. [7] We will not set aside a trial court's decision to deny a request to excuse a juror for cause absent a clear showing that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 574, 858 P.2d 1152, 1177 (1993); State v. Hill, 174 Ariz. 313, 319, 848 P.2d 1375, 1381 (1993). Defendant insists that the trial court's failure to dismiss for cause jurors Carpenter and Sigrest forced defendant to use peremptory strikes to remove the two jurors. Defendant was concerned that Carpenter's and Sigrest's close relationships with law enforcement would affect their impartiality. [8] Law enforcement ties, however, without some finding of partiality, are insufficient to disqualify jurors. State v. Pawley, 123 Ariz. 387, 389, 599 P.2d 840, 842 (App. 1979). Five times during the jury voir dire Mr. Carpenter unequivocally confirmed that he would be impartial. First, Mr. Carpenter voluntarily approached the judge, explained his ties to law enforcement, and explicitly confirmed that those ties would have no bearing on [his]decision. Second, in response to a later question as to whether his law enforcement ties would affect him as a juror, Mr. Carpenter replied in the negative. Third, although Mr. Carpenter said I could be impartial, but I got to believe that he may be guilty for something because the detective is here and he is in court, the judge immediately again asked Mr. Carpenter if his law enforcement associations would affect his ability to be impartial. Again Mr. Carpenter said no. On the fourth occasion, the judge made the following statement: In a criminal trial the burden of proof is on the state to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt before there could be a verdict of guilty on either of these counts. A Defendant in a criminal trial is presumed to be innocent. That presumption of innocence means that the Defense has no obligation to call witnesses to testify, they don't have to introduce any physical evidence in the course of the trial. The Defendant has the right to testify or refuse to testify as he and [defense counsel] choose.... I need to know if anyone would be unable to follow those principles of law if you are chosen to be on this jury? Mr. Carpenter, do you think that would be a problem for you? To which Mr. Carpenter responded, no sir. Fifth and last, the judge said: I was talking earlier about evaluating law enforcement officers who testify in the course of the trial and needing to keep an open mind about what they say. I need to make sure that everyone can evaluate them impartially and not either automatically believe them or disbelieve them just because they are in law enforcement. ... are you okay with that? ..... Mr. Carpenter, how about you? To which Mr. Carpenter responded affirmatively. The final question was posed to Ms. Sigrest as well, to which she responded similarly. Because defendant has not provided us a reasonable ground to believe that Mr. Carpenter or Ms. Sigrest could not render a fair and impartial verdict, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in retaining both as jurors. See Ariz. R.Crim. P. 18.4(b); State v. Lavers, 168 Ariz. 376, 390, 814 P.2d 333, 347 (1991).