Opinion ID: 1751529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: whether the trial court erred when it excused a juror for cause who failed to respond to a direct question during voir dire?

Text: The juror at issue here was number 75 on the venire. The last alternate juror was number 53. Excusing this juror, then, had no effect on the outcome of the case. A juror is disqualified within Miss. Code Ann § 13-5-67 (Supp. 1994), where on voir dire examination he or she has withheld information or misrepresented material facts. McNeal v. State, 617 So.2d 999, 1003 (Miss. 1993) (withholding or misrepresenting information when a clearly worded question was posed during voir dire clearly violates Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-67); see Lewis v. State, 580 So.2d 1279, 1283 (Miss. 1991) ([t]he failure of a juror to respond to a relevant, direct, and unambiguous question leaves the examining attorney uninformed and unable to ask any follow-up questions to elicit the necessary facts to intelligently reach a decision to exercise a peremptory challenge or to challenge a juror for cause); Myers v. State, 565 So.2d 554, 558 (Miss. 1990) (the nature of the Odom rule imports an objective test: in the face of a clearly worded question propounded on voir dire examination, one that bears relevance to the case at bar, has the juror withheld substantial information or misrepresented material facts?); Myers v. State, 565 So.2d 554, 557 (Miss. 1990); Odom v. State, 355 So.2d 1381 (Miss. 1978). Here the juror failed to respond to the question whether she had an interest in any case pending before the circuit court. It developed that her husband had been tried and acquitted during the same term and another indictment was still pending. On further voir dire, in chambers, the juror responded that she did not know the status of the second charge. She acknowledged that she would have an interest, if the case went to trial, but claimed that the lawyer had expressed doubt about its coming to trial. A fair reading of the record would support the conclusion that the juror was confused as to whether she had an interest in a a case then pending. The trial court found, however, that there was a case pending in which she had a personal interest and that she failed to respond. The challenge for cause was granted. Failure to respond aside, the juror's husband had recently been prosecuted to trial by the same prosecutor and had another unindicted charge pending. The trial court can hardly be faulted for granting a challenge for cause. This assignment of error is without merit.