Opinion ID: 1592017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Stephan Domangue

Text: This prospective juror was questioned in the sixth pre-qualification panel. [126] Stephan Domangue had no knowledge of the case and no hardship which would prevent him from serving on the jury. [127] The prosecutor engaged in the following colloquy with Mr. Domangue to ascertain his views on the death penalty: Prosecutor: . . . Do you think it's the proper function that the State should have a death penalty for certain types of cases? Mr. Domangue: Yes, sir. Prosecutor: Do you have a problem with the State seeking a death penalty in this type of case? Mr. Domangue: No, I do not. Prosecutor: Do you understand the procedure now that we have talked about it? [128] Mr. Domangue: Yes. Prosecutor: Given that procedure if you are placed on the jury, could you be fair and impartial to both sides? Mr. Domangue: Now that I understand the procedures, yes. Prosecutor: Can you would [you] weigh all the factors and be fair? You understand it's not automatic one way or another? That the circumstances determine the appropriate sentence? Mr. Domangue: Yes, sir. Prosecutor: You could do that? Mr. Domangue: Yes, sir. [129] Defense counsel later questioned Mr. Domangue regarding his death penalty views and referenced some of his answers on the jury questionnaires which were completed by the prospective jurors prior to trial: Defense counsel: . . . Everybody is entitled to their opinion on this. You favor   Given them what they deserve. You also put something about  they asked you a question about the defense attorney, what do you think about the defense attorney. And you put, Why do they need them? If arrested, he must be guilty. Okay, is that how you feel if he's arrested? Mr. Domangue: Well, I feel if he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he's guilty. Defense counsel: Okay. And at that point is life an option or the only  Mr. Domangue: Now that I understand the proceedings, yes, sir. Defense counsel: Okay. You could still keep an open mind? Mr. Domangue: Yes, sir. Defense counsel: Okay. You put down, Give them what they deserve. You favor the death  Mr. Domangue: Give them life or death. Defense counsel: Okay. So you didn't mean when you wrote that down that if he kills, then he must  Mr. Domangue: Oh, no. Defense counsel:  he must forfeit his life as well? Mr. Domangue: No. Defense counsel: But you, you [are] backing off of that a little bit now? Mr. Domangue: Yes. Defense counsel: After you have heard how the procedures are? Mr. Domangue: Yes, sir. Defense counsel: So life would be an option as a potential sentence? Mr. Domangue: Yes, sir. Defense counsel: Even though you found him guilty of first degree murder, you wouldn't  Mr. Domangue: Now I understand the proceedings, yes, sir. [130] After questioning of the panel was completed, the trial court asked the prosecutor and defense counsel for cause challenges as to the individual prospective jurors in the panel. Defense counsel challenged Mr. Domangue, stating, I know he said he backed off, but the statement of his, his written answer in the questionnaire is clear, `Give them what they deserve. If you are arrested, why do you need a defense attorney? You're guilty. ' [131] The prosecutor responded that Mr. Domangue admitted he had been educated about the process and was, thus, rehabilitated. The trial court agreed with the prosecutor and denied the defense challenge for cause. [132] Although this portion of the voir dire was focused on the prospective jurors' death penalty views, appellate defense counsel uses Mr. Domangue's responses here to argue that Mr. Domangue would not be able to be an impartial juror, that he would presume guilt from the defendant's arrest and that he would be unable to follow the law concerning the presumption of innocencesubjects which would not be discussed with potential jurors until the general questioning portion of voir dire. [133] It is clear from the context of the quoted material that trial defense counsel focused on Mr. Domangue's questionnaire responses with regard to how they impacted his views on capital punishment and the defense challenge for cause was made on that basis. Nevertheless, we find that Mr. Domangue's voir dire responses reveal his understanding that his earlier written answers to the pre-trial questionnaire were not consistent with the law that should be applied to the trial of this matter. Moreover, Mr. Domangue's responses evidenced his desire to follow the law. The general rule regarding review of prospective jurors for whom a partiality is alleged states that a challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied. State v. Robertson, 1992-2600 p. 4, 630 So.2d at 1281. However, a trial court does not abuse its discretion when it refuses to excuse a prospective juror on the ground that he is not impartial where, after further inquiry or instruction, the potential juror has demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and the evidence. Id. Here, the record affirmatively shows that Mr. Domangue acknowledged that his earlier responses to the written questionnaires were inconsistent with the law and that he was willing to be rehabilitated through voir dire instruction. Another of Mr. Domangue's questionnaire responses prompted trial defense counsel to question Mr. Domangue specifically during general voir dire questioning regarding the defendant's right to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify: Defense counsel: ... Mr. Domangue, you stated yes [on the questionnaire]. You do feel that if defendant doesn't testify that he has something to hide. You said, Yes. Mr. Domangue: Yes. Defense counsel: Okay. In spite of that feeling  it's okay to have that feeling. What we need to know from you is will that influence you in any way in deciding the case if what the State is proving or not; you can accept the law given to you by the Judge and not let that influence you in any way? Mr. Domangue: Correct. [134] The record shows that after successfully challenging another prospective juror from this panel after the general voir dire questioning was completed, defense counsel stated he had no further cause challenges for this panel. [135] Appellate defense counsel did not challenge Mr. Domangue for cause with regard to any general voir dire issues. Instead, trial defense counsel used a peremptory challenge to excuse Mr. Domangue from the venire. Appellate defense counsel raises no issue with regard to this portion of the voir dire that would require our review. The issues raised with regard to this prospective juror have no merit.