Opinion ID: 1305836
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Sharon Barrett Baldwin

Text: Williams complains that the court erroneously excluded prospective juror Baldwin. In deciding whether to exclude a prospective juror, the trial court must determine whether the prospective juror's views `would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.' Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 246, 397 S.E.2d 385, 391 (1990) (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2526, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 824, 112 S.Ct. 88, 116 L.Ed.2d 60 (1991). And, in considering this matter on appeal, we defer to the trial court's decision because the trial judge has seen and heard the prospective jurors and is in a better position than we are to rule on these issues. Breard, 248 Va. at 77, 445 S.E.2d at 676. Accordingly, we will not reverse the ruling on appeal in the absence of a showing of manifest error. Eaton, 240 Va. at 246, 397 S.E.2d at 391. Baldwin testified that she would automatically refuse to impose the death penalty because of her religious beliefs, and that she would not consider the court's directions to consider a death sentence as well as a life sentence. Her final answer was that she would have a very, very hard time [considering the death penalty]. Considering Baldwin's expression of her religious beliefs and her apparent reluctance to consider the court's directions, we find no manifest error in excusing her.