Opinion ID: 2382089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Veniremembers Baker, Coppage, Gosche, Hornback, Johnson, McClinton, Miles, Sloan, Sterling, and Wibbenmeyer

Text: In the case of ten of these fourteen veniremembers, the entire voir dire consisted of a single question by the prosecutor and one response. The defense did not attempt to rehabilitate any of these veniremembers. The prosecutor asked of the venirepanel: Do you know for a fact that your feelings against the death penalty are so strong that you could never ever under any circumstances vote in favor of the death penalty in any case, no matter what the facts? This question and slight variations thereof elicited the following responses: VENIREMAN BAKER: Yes. ... VENIREMAN COPPAGE: Yes. ... VENIREMAN GOSCHE: That's right. ... VENIREMAN HORNBACK: Yes, sir, that's correct. ... VENIREMAN JOHNSON: Yes. ... VENIREMAN McCLINTON: Yes, sir. ... VENIREMAN MILES: Yes. ... VENIREMAN SLOAN: Yes, sir. ... VENIREMAN STERLING: Yes, sir. ... VENIREMAN WIBBENMEYER: I couldn't do that. Even though the challenges for cause were sustained on the basis of a single word in some cases, that single word was an admission that the veniremember would not, under any circumstances, vote for the death penalty. A juror must be able to consider the full range of punishments available at law. State v. Murray, 744 S.W.2d 762, 768 (Mo. banc 1988); See Witherspoon, 391 U.S. at 522 n. 21, 88 S.Ct. at 1777 n. 21. Lyons contends that for the purposes of voir dire, the death penalty should not be considered as being within the range of available penalties for first-degree murder, as there are no circumstances in which the death penalty is mandatory. He relies on § 565.030.4(4), [2] which states that the jury may return a recommendation of life imprisonment without probation or parole despite a finding of an aggravating circumstance or a finding that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating. Lyons also relies on the following quote from State v. Petary, 790 S.W.2d 243, 246 (Mo. banc 1990): a juror may vote against a death sentence without having a reason. This authority is accurately quoted, but it does not support Lyons's proposition. While the jury may reject the sentence of death in any case, and may do so without stating its justification on the record, it remains that each juror must be impartial and able to consider the death penalty in a case in which it is sought. These ten veniremembers stated that they could not. Therefore, they could not perform the duties required of a juror in a capital trial. In the context of the entire voir dire of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State's challenges for cause.