Opinion ID: 2550813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Juror Roxie Gates

Text: According to defense counsel, during voir dire, Ms. Gates first stated that her decision of whether to impose a life or death sentence would depend on lots of things that would come out in court. She also stated that she was strongly in favor of the death penalty and would have a difficult time voting against it after the defendant had been found guilty. However, she reiterated that her decision would depend on the circumstances of the crime and what was presented at trial. Later Ms. Gates stated that the death penalty is justified in all cases where more than one person have been killed by a criminal act. However, Ms. Gates tempered that assertion by stating her vote for a death or life sentence in that situation would depend on what is presented at trial. When asked about specific factors that might have an impact on her decision, Ms. Gates stated that age of the defendant, whether or not he was intoxicated at the time, and whether or not he was under the influence of another person, would not cause her to vote for life rather than the death penalty. At the same time, however, she stated that other, unspecified, circumstances might cause her to vote for life imprisonment. Moreover, Ms. Gates contradicted herself when asked again about intoxication. This time, Ms. Gates stated that if a person was intoxicated to the point where they would not have committed the crime otherwise, she would have to hear his story before deciding the sentence. Later, when brought back for further questioning, Ms. Gates again stated that she has a difficult time believing intoxication could relieve someone of some responsibility, but she would have to hear all the circumstances before making a decision. The record reveals that the trial court denied defendant's cause challenge stating in part: My impression of the lady was she's favorably inclined towards the death penalty, but she did seem to be sophisticated and intelligent and alsowhen I say intelligent, what I mean is that she was able to articulate pretty wellher need to hear the facts at trial before she made any of these ultimate decisions. This case presents a similar circumstance to Anita Dorsey, in that both made statements during voir dire that would support a conclusion that they are strongly pro-death penalty as well as against intoxication as a mitigating circumstance, but when taken as a whole it is difficult to say whether they lacked the ability to be impartial, particularly given the fact that Ms. Gates repeatedly stated she would need to hear the circumstances of the case before deciding on a penalty. Moreover, the reasons for the trial court's denial suggests her demeanor during questioning was a decisive factor in its decision. See, State v. Lee, supra . Accordingly, we find that given the lack of clearly partial language from Ms. Gates on either her death penalty or intoxication positions, defense counsel failed to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying the challenge.