Opinion ID: 1686201
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: was it error for the trial court to refuse to excuse certain members of the jury panel for cause?

Text: The question of whether a juror should be excused for cause is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. If the trial court abuses its discretion by improperly failing to sustain a challenge for cause, we have held it reversible error. If the defendant peremptorily excuses that juror, the defendant is thereby prevented from using a peremptory challenge to another juror. Grooms, supra ; Marsch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 743 S.W.2d 830 (1988); Rigsby v. Commonwealth, Ky., 495 S.W.2d 795 (1973), overruled on other grounds by, Pendleton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 685 S.W.2d 549 (1985). With these principles to guide us, we shall examine the various challenged jurors. Venireman Virgil Peek knew both the Commonwealth Attorney and the chief investigating officer in the crime. While he stated that he was in favor of the death penalty, he would limit it to if the proof is beyond the shadow of a doubt. However, he stated, and reiterated several times that he was a strong believer in the eye for an eye theory. His final view on the imposition of the death penalty is obvious, as expressed by his own statement: ... but I believe that a person should be  should receive what he has accomplished. In other words, we've got them over there at the penitentiary that has killed people, you know. Alright, you put them in there and they stay ten years, and turn them right back out, and they commit the same things again. You understand? When do we ever learn? Goldia Parrish was related to a prison employee and knew many other employees of the prison. She had detailed knowledge of the facts of the case, including the fact that appellant was incarcerated due to a prior murder he had committed. She stated I think he might be guilty. Also she believed that whoever killed Mr. Cash should have the penalty. She also stated she would not consider mitigating evidence such as background, poverty, alcoholism, etc. Appellant's challenge for cause was denied and Parrish was struck by a peremptory challenge. V.T. Holt initially claimed that he knew nothing about the case and had never discussed it. Following extreme questioning by appellant's counsel, he admitted he had signed a letter to the editor of the local paper which, among other things said: ... the man accused of murdering Fred Cash was not simply a murderer, but a murderer for hire, yet he was classified as eligible for the Farm Center, a minimum security institution. He and two others were convicted of killing a man's wife by shooting, stabbing and beating her to death for a sum of money. This alone proves his regard for human life, yet he was at the Farm Center! A challenge for cause was denied and this man actually sat on the jury. Betty Guess knew and was related to several prison employees. She had business dealings with the prosecution. She discussed the case with a relative of the victim. She assumed appellant was guilty and was uncertain if she would consider mitigating evidence. Hylan Galusha was a friend of the chief investigating officer and two of his best friends and his two brothers worked at the prison. He discussed this case with his two brothers. A challenge for cause was denied and he also sat on the jury. Appellant exhausted his peremptory challenges on jurors he had challenged for cause. He also challenged for cause, albeit unsuccessfully, six of the twelve jurors who sat on the case. If the action of the trial court in failing to grant a challenge for cause constitutes an abuse of discretion, the rule of Marsch , Rigsby and Grooms comes into play. We will not belabor this opinion with the obvious, viz., that our law and our constitutions demand that a jury must be fair and impartial. The probability of bias or prejudice is determinative in ruling on a challenge for cause. Pennington v. Commonwealth, Ky., 316 S.W.2d 221 (1958). It is clear that venirepersons Peek, Parrish, Holt, Guess, and Galusha had strong, pre-conceived notions about the guilt of appellant, based on knowledge from several sources. Some had a preconceived opinion about the severity of the punishment to be administered. It cannot be argued that each of the venirepersons was impartial. By their own words, they were not and could not be fair and impartial jurors. For the trial court to deny each of the challenges for cause was a clear abuse of his discretion and the case is reversed on this basis.