Opinion ID: 2276112
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Denial of strikes for cause.

Text: Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike Jurors 380 and 500 for cause. We disagree. During individual voir dire, Juror 380 was questioned extensively about his ability to consider the full range of penalties for murder. [2] First, the court asked him if he could consider all five penalties in a case involving multiple murders. He responded that he could, stating, Yeah ... I guess it depends on how it went, on the evidence. He also stated that he would not automatically exclude or include any penalty. When asked what penalties he would consider in the case of intentional murder, the juror asked, Just plain out intentional murder, no other circumstances? He then responded that he would consider the three harshest penalties unless someone could prove to me otherwise. However, when asked whether he would consider all of the penalties if so instructed or if he would always limit himself to the three severest penalties in the case of intentional murder, he replied that he would not always opt for the three harshest penalties and that it would depend on the evidence. When asked whether he could consider all five penalties in a murder case, Juror 500 responded in the affirmative and indicated that he would not automatically exclude or include any of the listed punishments. His dialogue with defense counsel is illuminating: Q: If in addition to this intentional murder, not an accident, not self defense ... If you found that and an aggravating circumstance ... when you found that an intentional murder occurred and an aggravating circumstance existed, under those circumstances do you think you could fully consider that whole range of penalties? ... A: I believe I would want to ... consider them all still, even still. Q: Could you fairly consider twenty years in a case of aggravated intentional murder? A: I would consider it. That's not a final decision, but it's a consideration. Q: I might say the same thing .... I might consider doing a lot of things that I have no intention of doing.... Q: Do you mean you would fairly and truly consider it? A: That's what I would want to do. ... Q: Do you think you would be able to do it? A: I would certainly want to do that, yes. I think so. I could. ... Q: Listening to your answers, I get the feeling that if you're on a jury, that you favor these bottom couple of penalties ... in that intentional murder with an aggravator type of case .... A: I would probably, just, from what you're telling me, is in the middle there, kinda' being cornered, that's my first thought, I guess. Whether to strike a prospective juror for cause lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, Barth v. Commonwealth, Ky., 80 S.W.3d 390, 398 (2001) (citations omitted), and that decision will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Id. at 398-99. A strike for cause is necessary only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a prospective juror cannot render a fair and impartial verdict. RCr 9.36(1). Such grounds do not exist simply because a juror may favor harsher penalties. Mabe v. Commonwealth, Ky., 884 S.W.2d 668, 671 (1994) (A per se disqualification is not required merely because a juror does not instantly embrace every legal concept presented during voir dire examination.); Woodall v. Commonwealth, supra, at 119. No abuse of discretion occurred here. Both jurors stated that they would consider the full range of penalties. They expressed minor misgivings about their ability to consider the full range of penalties only when presented with a worst-case scenario, an aggravated intentional murder with no mitigating circumstances. Such did not require that they be excused for cause. Mabe, supra, at 671 (The test is not whether a juror agrees with the law when it is presented in the most extreme manner.). Their responses indicated that they would weigh all the evidence, including mitigating circumstances, before arriving at a verdict. Nor were they biased in favor of the death penalty. Notably, Juror 380 stated, It would have to be pretty bad to sentence another man to death.