Opinion ID: 2550813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Juror Jason Thomas

Text: Defense counsel complains about the trial court's decision in regard to potential juror, Jason Thomas, who defendant claims was challenged based on his inability to render a death penalty verdict. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 787 states that [t]he court may disqualify a prospective petit juror from service in a particular case when for any reason doubt exists as to the competency of the prospective juror to serve in the case. Defense counsel argues that the State challenged Mr. Thomas based on his inability to render a death penalty verdict, despite ample evidence in the record that Mr. Thomas was pro-death penalty. However, a review of the record reveals that Mr. Thomas was challenged by the State based on his relationship with a relative of the defendant. During voir dire it was revealed that two potential jurors, Thomas and Iylon Collins, were close friends with defendant's niece. After this discovery, the following exchange took place: State: Bottom line, based upon that, for both y'all, are you telling us that for this case, not that you couldn't do it on another case, but because of this case and your knowledge of some relatives of the defendant, are you telling me you would not render a death verdict? Thomas: Yes State: . . . Is that what you're telling me, Mr. Thomas? Thomas: Yes, sir. The trial court ultimately granted the State's cause challenge of Mr. Thomas based on the above assertion. We find that the State's challenge appears to fall squarely within the ambit of LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 797. Mr. Thomas unequivocally stated that he could not be impartial in this case based on his relationship with defendant's niece. While such a relationship does not warrant automatic dismissal, in this case, defendant does little to show the court abused its discretion by granting the challenge. He merely argues that Mr. Thomas should not have been disqualified based on his views on the death penalty. However, given that Mr. Thomas was not excused on those grounds, but rather was excused based on the effect his relationship with the defendant's niece would have on his ability to render a verdict, we find that defense counsel's claims appears to be without merit.