Opinion ID: 1781677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Doris Ross

Text: A review of the record demonstrates that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in granting the state's challenges for cause as to each of the prospective jurors in dispute. Prospective juror Doris Ross was questioned in the first panel. Before the venirepersons came up to the jury box, each had completed a questionnaire provided by the district court. Ms. Ross's responses revealed that she does not like the idea of judging others. To many questions, including whether she had any personal or philosophical beliefs that would prevent her from rendering a fair verdict in the case, she answered, Not sure. During examination, Ms. Ross was equally non-committal: A: That's what I'm not sure about. I mean, possibly I could, like what he said, you know, once I had heard all the proof. But I'm not absolutely sure that I could do that. I mean death. Ooh, that's just aso final....And at this point, I think maybe I could. Butbut what if I got there, and I said, `I can't do this,' you know. I'm just not sure enough about something that final, making a decision on it. At one point, she seemed to indicate that if the victim were an elderly person such as her father, she would probably be gung ho and could make this decision. However, she again equivocated. She further indicated that she had strong religious beliefs and that it would be hard for her to make a decision.. In granting the state's challenge for cause, the trial judge noted in Ms. Ross an interminable vacillation that was inconclusive given its depth and severity.