Opinion ID: 901120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in failing to strike the jury panel due to prejudicial remarks made by a potential juror.

Text: [¶ 28.] Prior to voir dire the court had a discussion with counsel concerning the absence of the defendant and the impact it would have on the jury. The court fashioned a jury instruction explaining Talarico's right to be absent at trial which explained that no inference of guilt or innocence was to be drawn from his absence. During voir dire counsel for Talarico discussed the jury instruction with the potential jurors. One potential juror in particular took issue with the defendant's absence. The juror stated that she felt that the defendant should be present and his absence definitely implied guilt. The juror was removed for cause. Subsequently, the court commented, the decision on whether or not Mr. Talarico is here or not is mine. Next, the court re-read the instruction concerning the defendant's absence from trial. Defense counsel ultimately passed the panel for cause. [¶ 29.] Since defense counsel did not object at trial, Talarico seeks to invoke the plain error rule on appeal. Talarico claims that the court committed reversible plain error when it failed to strike the entire jury panel after the allegedly prejudicial remarks by the one juror. [¶ 30.] This Court has held that it will only invoke the plain error rule in exceptional circumstances, such as, where a miscarriage of justice has occurred because the defendant is innocent or because the error may seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. State v. Dufault, 2001 SD 66, ¶ 8, 628 N.W.2d 755, 757 (citations omitted) (internal quotes omitted). The defendant bears the burden of proving prejudicial error. Id. A burden he has not met. [¶ 31.] Talarico claims that it is clear from the voir dire conducted after the juror's comments that the jurors were tainted and failure to dismiss the jury panel was prejudicial. Talarico refers to a potential juror who stated, that he would prefer that the defendant be present as he wanted to watch him squirm. During further questioning the potential juror stated that it would be easier if he was here, but I will do my best. This juror did not serve on the jury. Defendant also points to another potential juror who commented about having to accept the fact that the defendant was gone. This Court has held that it is the juror's inability to set aside those preconceptions and render an impartial verdict that requires excusal. State v. Verhoef, 2001 SD 58, ¶ 12, 627 N.W.2d 437, 440. Further questioning of the jurors who made the comments indicated they could be impartial and that they had not predetermined the defendant's guilt. We find that the defendant failed to show prejudicial error.