Opinion ID: 20143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: challenge for cause of venire member pollard

Text: 59 Soria contends that the trial court's refusal to excuse venire member Pollard for cause violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Soria argues that the voir dire examination of Pollard revealed that his views precluded him from considering a defendant's youth in mitigation of the death penalty. 14 60 On direct appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals opined that a juror may give any or no weight to evidence in itsdetermination of the special issues. Soria, 933 S.W.2d at 65. All that the [C]onstitution requires is that he not be precluded from considering evidence offered in mitigation and that he be provided a vehicle to give effect to such evidence. Id. 61 To the extent that the Court of Criminal Appeals states that it is the sentencer's prerogative to determine the weight given mitigating evidence, we certainly agree. See Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 116, 102 S.Ct. 869, 877 (1982). However, a sentencer may not give [mitigating evidence] no weight by excluding such evidence from [his] consideration. Id. The Supreme Court has made clear that a sentencer may not refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence. Id. Therefore, because the voir dire examination of venire member Pollard indicates that he could not consider a defendant's youth in mitigation of the death penalty, it appears that Pollard's views were such that he should have been excused for cause. 15 62 As previously set forth in section C of this opinion, Soria exercised a peremptory challenge against Pollard, which is fatal to his claim that his right to an impartial jury was violated. See Ross, 487 U.S. at 88, 108 S.Ct. at 2278. Soria has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right with respect to this claim. 63