Opinion ID: 1604196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the court's refusal to remove a juror for cause denied ricky chase a fair and impartial trial in violation of the constitution of the united states and the constitution and law of mississippi.

Text: Chase challenged for cause prospective juror Mary Welch. On voir dire, Ms. Welch had indicated that she had been robbed three times. When asked if it would bother her to sit on the case, she said, If it was proved that that's what they were doing at the time this happened. When asked if she thought that this would influence her ability to objectively and impartially hear the evidence, Ms. Welch responded, No. The trial court never ruled on this challenge. Ms. Welch was subsequently accepted by Chase as a juror at a time when Chase had not exhausted his peremptory challenges. In Shell v. State, 554 So.2d 887, 893 (Miss. 1989), rev'd on other grounds, Shell v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 1, 111 S.Ct. 313, 112 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990), this Court addressed the same issue: [T]his Court has held on more than one occasion that when a trial court fails to sustain a challenge for cause by the defense, it must be shown that the defense had exhausted all of its peremptory challenges before the trial court's refusal to allow the challenge for cause. Chisolm v. State, 529 So.2d 635, 639 (Miss. 1988); Johnson v. State, 512 So.2d 1246, 1255 (Miss. 1987). The rationale behind this rule was set out in Hansen v. State, 592 So.2d at 129-30: [T]he appellant has the power to cure substantially any error so long as he has remaining unused peremptory challenges. We would put the integrity of the trial process at risk were we to allow a litigant to refrain from using his peremptory challenges and, suffering an adverse verdict at trial, secure reversal on appeal on grounds that the Circuit Court did not do what appellant wholly had power to do. Chase contends that this situation is comparable to that in Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1984). The defense sought to excuse jurors in Billiot based on their reluctance to be open minded on the insanity defense. Although this Court determined that a juror's answer that she would try to follow the court's instructions was inadequate, there was no reversible error since the juror was excused by peremptory challenge. The Court in Billiot noted that the defense could have requested additional peremptory challenges but did not. In the case sub judice, Ms. Welch's response that her impartiality and objectivity would not be affected by her experience as a crime victim is not analogous to the inadequate response in Billiot. Chase further failed to use his remaining peremptory challenge or to request additional challenges. This claim is barred and, alternatively, not supported by the record.