Opinion ID: 2550813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Juror Lameika Johnson

Text: Defense counsel points to Ms. Johnson's voir dire testimony in which she stated that if you take someone's life you are forfeiting yours to be taken too. She went on to state that position would not change even if it was shown that the defendant was under considerable stress at the time, was under 18 years old, intoxicated, under the influence of another person, or had no prior criminal history. Finally, when asked how strongly she held these beliefs she stated, about ninety percent. Defendant argues that these statements show a clear inability to consider mitigating circumstances or choose a life sentence over the death penalty. However, the record demonstrates that when questioned by the State, Ms. Johnson stated that after hearing all the evidence in the penalty phase she could render a life sentence verdict if appropriate. Moreover, when questioned by the court later in the proceedings, Ms. Johnson reaffirmed that while she believed in the death penalty about ninety percent, she could follow the instructions of the court and the law with regard to considering a life sentence. Finally, when asked, You're not unalterably opposed to considering [a life sentence]. Is that correct? Ms. Johnson responded, That's correct. Based on her testimony, it is undeniable that Johnson is pro-death penalty. However, the record shows that Ms. Johnson made it clear that she would be able to listen to the mitigating evidence and weigh all factors before choosing between a life sentence and the death penalty. Accordingly, given the rehabilitation by the trial court which revealed Ms. Johnson's willingness to decide the case fairly according to the law and evidence, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Howard, 98-0064, pp. 7-10, 751 So.2d at 795-97; Robertson, 630 So.2d at 1281.