Opinion ID: 1060569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dennis Spellings

Text: Later that same day, Dennis Spellings was called for individual voir dire. The following dialogue occurred between Mr. Spellings and General Woodall: GENERAL WOODALL: ... Can you fairly consider the death penalty along with other forms of punishment? MR. SPELLINGS: That's a tough question. GENERAL WOODALL: As it should be.... [T]he law in the State of Tennessee is if the aggravating circumstances ... outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you shall impose the death penalty. Can you do that or do you have personal convictions or religious convictions that would prevent you from doing it? MR. SPELLINGS: It's a tough question to ask straight forward. I really don't have an answer. ... GENERAL WOODALL: Well, can you make that decision? Do you think that you could vote to impose the death penalty? MR. SPELLINGS: Honestly I don't. GENERAL WOODALL: Are you saying you don't think you could or maybe you could or you just don't know? MR. SPELLINGS: When we're talking about when push comes to shove, I don't know. GENERAL WOODALL: ... So are you saying you don't know whether you could or you won't? MR. SPELLINGS: I don't know. Defense counsel also attempted to elicit a definite position from Mr. Spellings, but was unsuccessful. The trial court interrupted and asked Mr. Spellings, After you hear all the proof, then you could make a decision as to whether or not death should apply? Mr. Spellings responded, I'll be honest with you. I'd rather not make that decision. During the court's discourse with Mr. Spellings, Mr. Spellings replied, at one point, that he could follow the law as instructed by the court, but later admitted that he did not know if he could follow the law as related to the death penalty. The State challenged Mr. Spellings for cause, relying on Mr. Spellings admission that he did not know whether he would follow the law. The trial court sustained the challenge, explicitly finding: This is the first time we've run into this where a person just ... won't answer the question or he feels like he can't answer the question. As I interpret the law that means that we have to get commitment from a juror that they would follow the law and that they would consider the death penalty under certain circumstances. I don't think that a juror is disqualified if they just continue to persistently say, I don't know what I would do. That's like a juror who's really saying will you affirm to uphold the law and he would say, Well, I just can't answer that. If you had a juror and you put him in the box and you say Do you swear to tell the truth? and he says, I can't say whether I will or not, you wouldn't let him testify. It takes an affirmative statement by a juror that he would consider all the penalties ... and would not exclude the death penalty as a possibility. I think the statements by this juror render him unqualified to served on the jury. Again, this court gives deference to the decision of the trial court who was able to observe the prospective juror. The record demonstrates that Mr. Spellings could not state with certainty that he could perform his duties as a juror in accordance with his oath. Accordingly, the trial court properly excused this juror for cause. This issue is without merit.