Opinion ID: 1172674
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 32

Heading: trial court exclusion of jurors challenged for cause

Text: (10) Whether certain prospective jurors were properly excused for cause. Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion in excusing prospective jurors Ms. Lisa Denis, Ms. Kristin A. Henderson and Richard Deal upon challenges for cause by the State. A trial court's ruling on challenge of a prospective juror for cause is reviewed for manifest abuse of discretion. [201] This Court gives deference to the trial court's finding that a prospective juror's views on the death penalty will prevent that person from trying the case fairly and impartially. [202] This is because [t]he trial judge is in the best position upon observation of the juror's demeanor to evaluate the responses and determine if the juror would be impartial. [203] In Wainwright v. Witt the Supreme Court quoted from Reynolds v. United States that the manner of the juror while testifying is oftentimes more indicative of the real character of his opinion than his words. That is seen below, but cannot always be spread upon the record.... [204] The standard for ruling on challenges for cause in a death penalty case is whether the prospective juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of that person's duties as a juror according to instructions and the oath taken by jurors. [205]