Opinion ID: 1247651
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Prospective Juror Hill

Text: Finally, when prospective juror Hill was first asked by the prosecutor whether he had an opinion as to whether the sentence should be death or life if the jury found defendant guilty, he responded that he had no such opinion. However, when the prosecutor returned to the sentencing issue in more detail, the following exchange took place: [PROSECUTOR]: Now, Mr. Hill, do you have any opinions against the death penalty? MR. HILL: I've never really given it any thought. [PROSECUTOR]: You never gave it any thought? MR. HILL: No. Never been put in this position. [PROSECUTOR]: I understand that. Do you feel you would be able to consider  if Mr. Anthony was found guilty of first-degree murder that you would be able to consider both possible sentences in this case  life imprisonment or death? MR. HILL: It's kind of hard to say whether a person live [sic] or die. It would be hard for me to say. [PROSECUTOR]: It would be hard for you to make a decision on the sentencing phase? MR. HILL: Yes. [PROSECUTOR]: Would you automatically vote against a sentence of death? MR. HILL: Yes, I would. [PROSECUTOR]: You would? MR. HILL: Yes, I would. The trial court then allowed the State's challenge for cause. This record demonstrates that each of these jurors sooner or later unequivocally stated that he or she could not recommend the death penalty under any circumstances. In light of these responses, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's requests to attempt to rehabilitate these jurors. This assignment of error is overruled.