Opinion ID: 1610587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the trial court err in excusing for cause venireperson Dorothy Jenkins?

Text: After informing the prospective jurors that the chosen jury would have to be sequestered, the trial judge asked the venire whether sequestration would present a hardship and a burden to each venireperson. Of the jurors who responded affirmatively, Mrs. Dorothy Jenkins stated she had four children at home and her husband was out of town. Mrs. Jenkins' children were ages 13, 15, 17, and 19. The trial judge excused Mrs. Jenkins because she had children at home with no one to care for them and could not suffer sequestration without an undue hardship. When asked whether they objected to the excusal of several potential jurors, including Mrs. Jenkins, one of the defense attorneys responded, We would so state into the record that we feel the court justifiably for cause allowed to be peremptorily excused for cause all the jurors that were excused... . On appeal, Nixon argues the trial court erred in excusing Mrs. Jenkins. As a general rule the court, in the exercise of sound discretion, may excuse a juror before he is sworn for any reason personal to such person which would make his service as a juror oppressive, or in fact for any reason which to the judge seems sufficient. 47 Am.Jur. Jury § 121 (1969). See also, Brown v. State, 38 So. 316 (Miss. 1905) (Venireperson excused because he desired to be at home when his son left for the Philippine Islands.) The trial judge was well within his discretion to excuse Mrs. Jenkins. This assignment of error has no merit. Also, Nixon contends the prosecutor made an improper comment on voir dire concerning Nixon's failure to testify in his own behalf. During voir dire, the defense attorney, not the prosecutor, engaged the venire in a series of questions regarding Nixon's right to remain silent. During this exchange, the district attorney asked to approach the bench, after which the defense attorney was asked to rephrase one of his questions. Thereafter, the following occurred: BY DEFENSE COUNSEL: Do you all understand that the fact that John B. Nixon does not testify is not an indication of his guilt if he does not testify? Do you all understand this? BY THE COURT: The proper question, Mr. Townsend, is not evidence of his guilt. BY DEFENSE COUNSEL: It is not evidence of his guilt. Do you all understand this? This Court, gleaning no improper conduct by the prosecutor or the trial judge, holds this contention is without merit.