Opinion ID: 2595501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Exclusion of jurors who objected to the death penalty on moral or religious grounds

Text: ¶ 4 The trial judge exercised his discretion to use a written jury questionnaire, as is permitted by Ariz.R.Crim.P. 18.5. The venire persons whose names had been drawn were asked to report to the courthouse, where they were sworn in, introduced to counsel and Defendant, given the stock cautionary instruction, given the questionnaire, and instructed on how to fill it out. The preface to the questionnaire said the answers would have the effect of a statement given to the court under oath. Once they delivered the completed document to the clerk, the venire persons were free to leave but were instructed to return the next day unless called and excused. [1] ¶ 5 The lawyers and the judge met in the afternoon to review the completed questionnaires. Persons not discharged as a result of the afternoon discussions would return the following morning for oral voir dire. During the discussion in chambers, the judge and counsel discovered that in answering questions 9(A) and 9(B) of the questionnaire, three prospective jurors stated that they were opposed to the death penalty on moral or religious grounds and could not set aside these beliefs. All three were removed from the jury pool for cause over defense counsel's objection and request that he be allowed oral voir dire that might rehabilitate them. Defendant contends the trial judge erred and his constitutional right to an impartial jury was violated when he was convicted by a jury from which all who held religious and conscientious objections to the death penalty were excluded. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Ariz. Const. art. II, § 23. ¶ 6 The United States Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment is violated if the trial jury in a capital case is chosen by excluding for cause persons who have general objections to the death penalty. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). A general objection to the death penalty is not sufficient to create a presumption that a prospective juror is unfit because of bias to sit on the panel. The Court's language was quite clear: It is, of course, settled that a State may not entrust the determination of whether a man is innocent or guilty to a tribunal `organized to convict.' It requires but a short step from that principle to hold, as we do today, that a State may not entrust the determination of whether a man should live or die to a tribunal organized to return a verdict of death. Specifically, we hold that a sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. No defendant can constitutionally be put to death at the hands of a tribunal so selected. Id. at 521-23, 88 S.Ct. at 1776-77 (citations and footnotes omitted). ¶ 7 However, this rule is not applicable to prospective jurors who state unequivocally that they could never impose the death penalty regardless of the facts of the particular case. Id. at 514, 88 S.Ct. at 1772; see also Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719, 734 n. 7, 112 S.Ct. 2222, 2232 n. 7, 119 L.Ed.2d 492 (1992) (The process of voir dire is designed to cull from the venire persons who demonstrate that they cannot be fair to either side of the case. Clearly, the extremes must be eliminatedi.e., those who, in spite of the evidence, would automatically vote to convict or impose the death penalty or automatically vote to acquit or impose a life sentence.). ¶ 8 In the present case, question 9(B) of the written questionnaire asked: Could you set aside any conscientious or religious feelings you might have against the death penalty and impartially weigh the evidence in this case and render a verdict in accordance with the law? All three prospective jurors marked the box indicating they could not. If this was their final and unequivocal position, excusing them did not violate the rule of Witherspoon and Morgan by depriving Defendant of an impartial jury. ¶ 9 In determining whether a prospective juror's attitude toward the death penalty is so fixed as to require exclusion from the jury, we apply the Witherspoon standard as modified by Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). In Wainwright, the Court held that a person's opposition to the death penalty need not be proved with unmistakable clarity, but a prospective juror may be excused if his views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror.... Id. at 424, 105 S.Ct. at 852 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 2528, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980)). Arizona adopted an identical standard in State v. Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. 441, 449, 702 P.2d 670, 678 (1985). In Arizona, [d]isqualification when a juror states his inability to be impartial is not only permissible but imperative. State v. Wiley, 144 Ariz. 525, 534, 698 P.2d 1244, 1253 (1985) (overruled on other grounds by State v. Superior Court, 157 Ariz. 541, 760 P.2d 541 (1988)); see also State v. Willoughby, 181 Ariz. 530, 892 P.2d 1319 (1995) (excusing venire person who could not convict due to religious opposition to the death penalty does not violate state constitutional provision against disqualification based on religious beliefs). ¶ 10 In the present case, the trial judge's denial of questioning beyond the prospective jurors' written answers forces us to determine from the questionnaire answers alone whether their attitudes toward the death penalty were so entrenched as to disqualify them from service. On this record, we must conclude that it is possible that the three could have been rehabilitated by oral voir dire that established their ability to set aside their beliefs and follow the law. Ms. P, for example, not only marked questions 9(A) and 9(B) to indicate she had scruples about the death penalty and could not set them aside, but also marked question 19 to indicate that if she were selected, she would follow the judge's instructions, disregarding her own notions about what the law might be. Given that answer, we cannot say her position on question 9 was final and unequivocal. Ms. N answered question 19 in like manner. Ms. W was even more equivocal, saying in answer to question 9(B) that she was only unsure about whether she could set aside her beliefs. She did not say she could not do so, and her answer to question 19 indicated she also would follow the judge's instructions. Witherspoon does not allow the trial judge to dismiss prospective jurors for cause merely for expressing objections, which may turn out to be equivocal, to the death penalty. To do so, without further questioning for clarification, would violate the Sixth Amendment and due process if the jury were responsible for sentencing. See Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 521-23, 88 S.Ct. at 1776-77. We have no way of knowing whether the prospective jurors' objections here were general or fixed. It may be that their response to question 9(B)that their opposition to the death penalty could not be set asidewould be proven incorrect by follow-up questions on voir dire. [2] As Witherspoon itself recognizes, this is often the case. Id. at 515 n. 7, 88 S.Ct. at 1773 n. 7. A later case teaches that we must assume rehabilitation on the Witherspoon question would have been possible when inadequate questioning in the voir dire procedure makes it impossible for an appellate court to determine whether the trial judge erred in removing [the venire persons] for cause. Gray v. Mississippi, 481 U.S. 648, 662-63, 107 S.Ct. 2045, 2053, 95 L.Ed.2d 622 (1987). ¶ 11 The Witherspoon court took no position on the question of whether a verdict of guilt from a jury so organized must be set aside. 391 U.S. at 517-18, 88 S.Ct. at 1774-75. If Witherspoon is applicable to a state like Arizona, in which the judge sentences defendants convicted of a capital crime, the trial judge was required to establish, by appropriate voir dire and in compliance with state law procedures, that the venire persons unequivocally expressed an inability to follow the law and the judge's instructions. Gray, 481 U.S. at 663, 107 S.Ct. at 2054 (trial judge failed to follow Witherspoon voir dire procedure required by Mississippi law when venire persons indicated their opposition to death penalty might make them unable to impose death sentence; thus, court was unable to ascertain that such jurors were Witherspoon ineligible and Sixth Amendment guarantee of impartial jury was violated). ¶ 12 Even if Witherspoon and its progeny are not binding in Arizona, a judge-sentencing state, the fact is we have adopted them. It would, we think, defy reality to conclude that the jury's determination of guilt or innocence in a first-degree murder prosecution is unaffected afteras in this casethe jurors have learned from the voir dire process itself that death is a potential result of a guilty verdict. Arizona's system implicitly and explicitly acknowledges that jurors' views in opposition to the death penalty could affect their ability to impartially evaluate the defendant's guilt. [3] Otherwise, why in a judge-sentencing state do we voir dire at all on Witherspoon 's questions dealing with opposition to the death penalty? The issue is irrelevant unless we acknowledge that jurors' views on the death penalty affect the verdict of guilt or innocence. We so acknowledged, indeed, when we accepted the state's submission and approved death qualification because a juror's views on capital sentencing might prevent or substantially impair the performance of the juror's duties to decide the question of guilt or innocence. State v. LaGrand, 153 Ariz. 21, 33, 734 P.2d 563, 575 (1987) (quoting Martinez-Villareal, 145 Ariz. at 449, 702 P.2d at 678); see also State v. Van Adams, 194 Ariz. 408, 984 P.2d 16 (1999) (rejecting argument that jurors should not be death-qualified because Arizona is judge-sentencing state). There are, of course, two sides to the coin. Just as the State believes death qualification is necessary to a fair trial so that it may remove potential jurors whose opposition to the death penalty would prevent or impair their willingness to convict, we must also acknowledge Defendant's contention that removal of all jurors opposed to the death penalty but willing to set aside their views might produce a jury organized to return a verdict of guilt. Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 521, 88 S.Ct. at 1776. ¶ 13 Defendant not only requested oral voir dire to follow up and possibly rehabilitate, but our case law and Rule 18.5 gave him the right to attempt such rehabilitation on Witherspoon issues. Rule 18.5(d) reads: The court shall conduct a thorough oral examination of prospective jurors. Upon the request of any party, the court shall permit that party a reasonable time to conduct further oral examination of the prospective jurors. The court may impose reasonable limitations with respect to questions allowed during a party's examination of the prospective jurors, giving due regard to the purpose of such examination. In addition, the court may terminate or limit voir dire on grounds of abuse. Nothing in this Rule shall preclude the use of written questionnaires to be completed by the prospective jurors, in addition to oral examination. [4] (Emphasis added.) ¶ 14 Defendant argues that the trial judge was required to allow his counsel the opportunity to question the prospective jurors orally and thus ascertain if they could set aside their opposition to the death penalty and render a fair and impartial verdict. Under existing Arizona law, the judge lacks discretion to deny defense counsel's request under Rule 18.5. State v. Shone, 190 Ariz. 113, 115, 945 P.2d 834, 836 (App.1997). The wording of the amended rule requiring a reasonable examination on request of either party is not ambiguous. A reasonable amount of time necessarily includes some amount of time to question on a key issue, subject, as the rule says, to limit or termination to prevent abuse. The clear language and intent of the present rule is that each party be given opportunity and reasonable time to question prospective jurors to discover information relevant to challenges and to possibly rehabilitate them. Id.; see also People v. Wilborn, 70 Cal.App.4th 339, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 583 (1999) (trial judge's refusal to voir dire on juror's possible racial bias required reversal); People v. Lefebre, 981 P.2d 650 (Colo.App.1998) (same, under procedural rule similar to ours); Balfour v. State, 598 So.2d 731 (Miss.1992) (refusal to allow rehabilitative voir dire on Witherspoon issue violated both state procedural law and federal constitutional requirements). ¶ 15 The dissent seems to argue that under Rule 18.5 a party has the right to oral voir dire only after the judge has given the thorough oral voir dire that the rule requires. Dissent at ¶ 39. If this were so, there is no right to oral voir dire when the judge has violated the rule's requirement that he or she perform a thorough oral examination of the panel. Even if we agreed with this strained reading of the rule, the result is not changed. The rule is violated when the judge fails to comply with the requirement that he or she conduct the oral voir dire examination. Rule 18.5 cannot rationally be read to permit the trial judge to use written questionnaires in order to dispense with the thorough oral voir dire the rule requires the judge to make and to allow counsel. Such an interpretation would permit the judge to completely abrogate oral voir dire examination, thus violating the text and intent of Rule 18.5. ¶ 16 The State argues that there were other valid reasons for the trial judge to discharge the three persons in question. Review of the transcripts, however, indicates that the other grounds mentioned were makeweights, if anything, rather than motives for discharge. Their answers to other portions of the questionnaire disclose no reason for granting a challenge for cause without allowing the requested voir dire for rehabilitation purposes. As to Ms. W, for instance, the judge mentioned the fact that the very graphic nature of potential evidence might upset her, that she was not sure she understood the rules regarding proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus she might not be able to render a verdict solely on the evidence presented at trial. Reporter's Transcript, Jan. 12, 1998, at 30. None of these answers is so exceptional as to present so clear a need for dismissal for cause as to excuse violation of Rule 18.5. The reasons given for Ms. N's discharge were even less compelling. She responded that she was unsure how she would react to graphic evidence because it might sway her to a guilty verdict. Most important, she stated that because of my Christian beliefs, I'm not in a position to judge someone guilty for a possible death sentence. He is the only one who can judge that. The latter statement was what prompted the judge's action. Id. at 37. Nevertheless, Ms. N indicated in answer to question 19 that if selected as a juror, she would follow the judge's instructions and disregard her own notions. We do not believe the fact that a prospective juror holds strong Christian or other religious beliefs that might affect her view of the evidence is grounds for a challenge for cause without allowing voir dire to determine whether she can follow the law and the judge's instructions. Finally, Ms. P was discharged for even less reason. The only problem the judge mentioned in addition to her answers to questions 9(A) and 9(B) was the fact she had indicated she was unsure about being fair if she was shown graphic evidence. Id. at 29. Each of these rulings was made over objection and a request for oral voir dire. These rulings all violated Rule 18.5. They also violated the death qualification procedure our court has adopted. ¶ 17 We come, then, to the question of whether reversal is required when a violation of Rule 18.5(d) results in discharge of a potential juror or jurors who may or may not have been impartial. Whatever the answer in an ordinary case, and even though the Supreme Court has not made Witherspoon applicable to judge-sentencing states, we must keep in mind not only the fact that our case law has accepted the principles recognized by Witherspoon, but also the underlying importance to the system of justice of the questions at issue here. Several cases from other states are analogous and instructive. Florida's voir dire rule is similar to ours in giving counsel a right of oral voir dire. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.300(b). On the basis of that rule, the Florida Supreme Court reversed a capital conviction because the trial judge erred in refusing to afford defense counsel an opportunity to rehabilitate two venire persons who had indicated their opposition to the death penalty. O'Connell v. State, 480 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla.1985). In a later case presenting the same situation, the court affirmed the conviction but vacated the death penalty, reducing the sentence to life imprisonment. Hernandez v. State, 621 So.2d 1353 (Fla.1993). One year later, the court again reduced a sentence to life because of a similar violation of the voir dire rule. Willacy v. State, 640 So.2d 1079 (Fla.1994). The Willacy court distinguished O'Connell, pointing out that the conviction in that case was implicated because the trial judge deprived the defendant of due process by denying him the right to rehabilitate prospective jurors who opposed the death penalty while allowing the state to rehabilitate those who favored it. Id. at 1081. The present case is much like O'Connell because, despite being a judge-sentencing state, Arizona has given the state the right to raise and voir dire on Witherspoon issues. See Van Adams, 194 Ariz. at 417, 984 P.2d at 25, and ante ¶ 13. ¶ 18 Mississippi, a jury-sentencing state, has reached similar conclusions. Mississippi law gives the parties in all jury trials the right to question prospective jurors on voir dire. See Miss.Code Ann. § 13-569 (1972) (now contained in Rule 5.02, Mississippi Uniform Criminal Rules for Circuit Court Procedure). In what they call  Witherspoon with a twist, the Mississippi cases hold it is reversible error to refuse counsel an opportunity to rehabilitate on Witherspoon issues. See, e.g., Fuselier v. State, 468 So.2d 45, 54-55 (Miss.1985); cf. Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d 114, 127 (Miss.1991) (error to refuse rehabilitation on Witherspoon issues, but error was harmless because answers to judge's question were not equivocal); Balfour, 598 So.2d at 754-55 (also found error, but failed to reach harmless error issue). ¶ 19 Defendant was entitled by our rule to voir dire examination of potential jurors. In light of our practice of death qualification on the question of guilt or innocence, Defendant was entitled to attempt to rehabilitate those venire persons who expressed opposition to the death penalty and to save them for the trial jury, thus possibly having the question of his guilt or innocence determined by a jury composed of both opponents of and adherents to the death penalty. Death qualification is a two-edged sword. While we need not and do not reach any conclusion with respect to whether the failure to allow oral voir dire and possible rehabilitation created a federal constitutional violation, we certainly must conclude that it was a violation of our procedural rules on an issue of vital importance and fundamental fairness. ¶ 20 Error in jury selection on Witherspoon and similar issues is considered structural; [t]he remedy for a juror wrongfully excluded is potent. Balfour, 598 So.2d at 755 (refusal to allow rehabilitative questions on Witherspoon issue; also reversed on other grounds). Harmless error analysis is inapplicable to the erroneous grant of challenges for cause on Witherspoon -type issues. See Davis v. Georgia, 429 U.S. 122, 97 S.Ct. 399, 50 L.Ed.2d 339 (1976). In a later case, the Court described the facts and reaffirmed Davis in the following terms: In order to avoid errors based on this type of failure to establish an adequate foundation for juror exclusion, Mississippi law ... requires the trial judge himself to question the venire members. The trial judge in this case, however, did not comply with the Mississippi procedure. Had he done so, despite their initial responses, the venire members might have clarified their positions upon further questioning and revealed that their concerns about the death penalty were weaker than they originally stated. It might have become clear that they could set aside their scruples and serve as jurors. The inadequate questioning regarding the venire members' views in effect precludes an appellate court from determining whether the trial judge erred in refusing to remove them for cause.