Opinion ID: 1718692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Jessica Hearne

Text: Hearne was questioned in Pool 1, Panel 2. Hearne's responses to the trial court's questions on the death penalty were decidedly equivocal: Q: Ms. Hearne, regardless of the evidence would you be unable to even consider imposing the death sentence? A: I'm not sure. Q: Okay. Would you automatically vote for life imprisonment regardless of what the evidence might show during the penalty phase? A: I'm just not sure. Q: Do you have conscientious scruples against infliction of capital punishment? A: Against myself making the decision for someone else's life, yes. The judge continued by explaining to Hearne that both sides want a jury that can follow the law and be fair and impartial, but that the state was looking for jurors who could vote guilty of first degree murder, and then, vote for the death penalty. When the judge asked Hearne if she could do that, she waffled: I've never had to do that before so I can't ... I can only tell you that I ... I would not like to do that. The judge asked again: Q: [W]hat I am asking you is, and you're the only person that knows this, when you search inside of you, can you fairly consider all of the evidence and vote for ... depending on the evidence and what you think is appropriate, for life or death. Or do you think that your feelings would interfere with you fairly doing it? A: That's possible. When the judge asked Ms. Hearne whether she could be fair and impartial during the penalty phase, Ms. Hearne replied, I could try. While admitting that she had conscientious scruples against the infliction of capital punishment, Ms. Hearne suggested that this would not preclude her from ever voting for the death sentence under any circumstances whatsoever. Hearne conceded that the determination of guilt or innocence did not bother her as much as having to decide whether someone should live or die. The prosecutor suggested to Hearne that this was not an extreme first degree murdernot a Jeffrey Dahmer or an Adolph Hitler. But it's your firm belief that your feelings would substantially impair you from rendering a death verdict? Hearne replied, That's right. Under defense questioning, Hearne stated It's not necessarily the death penalty itself that I have a problem with. It is my deciding that someone should or shouldn't have the death penalty.... I just don't want to be the one to mete out judgment on another person. On the defense's death penalty scale of one to ten, Hearne ranked herself as a five. Hearne reiterated that she would not want to take part in a decision about the death penalty, and that she would respect the other's opinions, but it wouldn't change mine.... I am strongly opposed as I stated earlier to having someone's life in my own hands. After the state challenged Hearne for cause, defense counsel stated, I don't wish to call her back for further questioning. The court granted the state's cause challenge with the following observations: Ms. Hearne told us in numerous phrases, terms and by her demeanor that sure, some people deserve it, she doesn't want to do it, she's not going to do it. And this court is convinced that in any case she sat on, she would never impose the death penalty. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 798(2)(b) supports the State's challenge as to Hearne. Nothing presented by defendant persuades this Court that the judge abused his discretion in granting the state's cause challenge as to Hearne.