Opinion ID: 2575291
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excusal of Prospective Juror A.S.

Text: In Prospective Juror A.S.'s questionnaire, she stated she Will Consider the death penalty, and drew an arrow pointing toward the Oppose and Strongly Oppose responses. She believed that the penalty should be exercised with great caution. One must be absolutely convinced of the guilt of the accused. He or she must have committed a crime for which they could never be forgiven and which demonstrates a disregard for human life. During voir dire by the court, she stated that choos[ing] the death penalty would be very difficult for me.... [T]he circumstances would have to be very aggravating. She also stated she would be capable of performing the weighing process required to determine the appropriate penalty; she would listen to all of the evidence and arguments before choosing a penalty; she could make a choice between the penalties, and she would not automatically choose one penalty over another. When the defense asked whether she could vote for death if she concluded the death penalty was the appropriate punishment, A.S. responded, I think so. When the prosecutor inquired concerning the hesitancy reflected in her response, she agreed that although she could impose the death penalty on an intellectual level, emotionally and spiritually it was more difficult. She explained the basis of her inclination against the death penalty: I don't think it's right to kill other people. And that doesn't mean that's not justified in very, very unusual cases, but I would not ... take that lightly. Seems like a very grave issue. She stated she could vote to send a man to his death, but when pressed by the prosecutor to confirm that she could vote for the death penalty, she responded, I'm not sure I could. The prosecutor asked, In other words, you don't know whether, if you got to that stage emotionally, then you could actually do it even though intellectually you believed it to be the appropriate decision? A.S. agreed, That's true. The prosecutor challenged A.S. for cause under Witt, supra, 469 U.S. 412. Over defense objection, the trial court sustained the challenge, stating, I believe that the juror was setting the signals early in the voir dire, and she exhibited some difficulty even going through the weighing process, when she had volunteered the concerns about the death penalty as it would affect her ability to go though the weighing process, but we got through that. But I think under these circumstances, that [the prosecutor's] challenge should be granted because I believe that this juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of her duties as a juror in accordance with [the] instructions.