Opinion ID: 4103812
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Nancy N.

Text: Prospective Juror Nancy N. was 54 years old, African-American, a librarian, and a Republican. Her questionnaire answers revealed a person who was generally ―opposed to capital punishment‖ because the likelihood of ―human error seems to indicate that the jurors may convict an innocent person,‖ and that she had voted against the 1978 initiative measure to reinstate the death penalty. Where the questionnaire asked what types of crimes warranted the death penalty, she answered: ―None.‖ Asked what purpose the death penalty served, she answered: ―Very little—persons who would kill aren‘t concerned with society‘s approval.‖ She indicated she would ―always‖ vote against sentencing an offender to death, but disagreed only ―somewhat‖ with the statement that those who kill intentionally should always receive the death penalty. Nancy N. attempted to clarify her views during voir dire. She admittedly disfavored capital punishment in general and, asked whether there could ―ever‖ be 22 a case in which she would vote for the death penalty, answered: ―No, I don‘t think so.‖ Asked about the notorious serial killer and cannibal Jeffrey Dahmer,5 she said the death penalty ―could be appropriate‖ and that, in an appropriate case, she could personally vote to impose the death penalty, but estimated only 1 out of 100 cases would fall into that category. Nancy N. would not decline to vote guilty just to avoid a penalty phase, and she affirmed that although sitting on the jury would make her ―extremely uncomfortable,‖ she would consider all the aggravating and mitigating factors before making a penalty decision. The prosecutor challenged Nancy N. for cause and the trial court granted the motion, finding Nancy N. ―substantially impaired,‖ adding: ―I don‘t think she even comes close.‖ Defendant contends the record shows Nancy N. ―was a life-leaning juror, but that she was willing to consider and weigh those factors that might support the death penalty.‖ Defendant also emphasizes the juror averred that, ―in an appropriate case, she could vote for the death penalty.‖ But although the juror indeed made such assertions, she also said there were no crimes for which she would vote for death, and would always vote against the death penalty. Given these contradictory answers, it was for the trial court to discern the juror‘s true state of mind. Because she gave some answers suggesting she would not fairly consider death as a penalty in an appropriate case, and would leave open the possibility of capital punishment only in a rare and extreme case, we conclude 5 Jeffrey Dahmer was a serial killer who was convicted of the murder of 15 men and boys between 1978 and 1991. His crimes often involved dismemberment, retention of body parts and, in some instances, necrophilia and cannibalism. He was beaten to death in prison by another inmate in 1994. 23 substantial evidence supports the trial court‘s assessment of the juror‘s true state of mind, and we defer to its decision to excuse the juror. (People v. Gonzales and Soliz (2011) 52 Cal.4th 254, 316.)