Opinion ID: 1809527
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Venire member Marie Honea

Text: Marie Honea reported for jury service having never set foot in a courtroom before. Her lack of knowledge of legal concepts was apparent from her first comments on the death penalty: If he is found guilty ... of killing whoever was killed, was it one, two or four, whoever was killed, then I would say he'd get the death penalty. She then stated that she believed that the death penalty was for guilty people and life imprisonment was for people who were not found guilty but the prosecutor's explanations seemed to clear up some of her misunderstandings. The defense attorney then questioned her about the death penalty and discovered that she believed that the only penalty for intentional murder, regardless of mitigation, was death: Q (by the defense attorney): Okay. All right. If you thought somebody was guilty of murder what would be your decision about their punishment? A (by Mrs. Honea): If they murdered the person and meant to murder them, you know, that was there (sic) intent to murder them, I say capital punishment. Q: Yes, ma'am. A: But, if it was different reasons then it would come into this other deal you was talking about. It would come into what... like when you come over here you find maybe ... maybe he had a reason. Maybe this person was going to kill him. See? Q: Yes, ma'am. Now,.... A: So, ... Q: .. You understand if the person was going to kill him and he could prove that, that would be like self-defense? A: Yes. Q: All right. A: So, it wouldn't be murder.. Well, I.. I really don't see ... Q: Well, I'm not ... A: All I believe in, if you kill somebody... I believe in capital punishment. That's all I believe in. If you deliberately kill somebody. Mrs. Honea kept raising the issue of selfdefense, which she seemed to believe was the only thing which could mitigate a murder. She appeared utterly unable to comprehend the distinction between a defense in the guilt phase and a mitigating factor in the penalty phase. Insofar as she was able to consider what she might do if no mitigation evidence was produced in the penalty phase, she stood by her view that intentional murders should always be punished by death: Q (by the defense attorney): What if you didn't hear anything (in mitigation), ma'am? A (by Mrs. Honea): Well, I'd still be like I was over (in the guilt phase). Q: If you didn't hear anything about a good reason.... A: Yeah. Q: .. then it's death penalty? A: Yes. Q: And you wouldn't consider life? You have to answer out loud. A: No, I wouldn't consider life. Shortly thereafter, the judge addressed the jury and read to them articles 905.2 and 905.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning sentencing hearings and jury findings for death sentences. He then asked each juror in turn whether he or she could accept the law as he would give it and his instructions. Mrs. Honea answered Yes when it was her turn. This was the extent of the rehabilitation on this issue. The judge then denied the defendant's cause challenge to Mrs. Honea and the voir dire proceeded. At the close of the voir dire of this panel, the defense challenged this prospective juror for cause based on her death penalty views and her inability to follow the law as to the presumption of innocence, and again the challenge was denied. Defendant's cause challenge to Mrs. Honea should have been granted. Mrs. Honea clearly stated that in a case of intentional murder she would only consider the death penalty and would not consider life imprisonment. No individual rehabilitation was attempted by the prosecutor, nor did Mrs. Honea specifically abandon this view. She merely made a single general affirmation of her ability to follow the law when asked to do so en masse with her fellow panel members. On the whole, her responses consistently demonstrated her inability to set aside her views and be impartial on the issue of punishment. Because of their responses during voir dire, and because of the inadequate rehabilitation of these jurors, the court's refusal to grant the cause challenges to Pritchard and Honea constituted reversible error. See Ross, at 644 where the trial court committed reversible error by failing to excuse a juror whose personal opinion was that the death penalty should be the only penalty for first degree murder, even though the juror claimed that he could consider both penalties.