Opinion ID: 1855709
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Prospective juror Bossom

Text: Defendant next asserts that prospective juror Bossom was improperly struck based on her views on the death penalty. Defendant bases this argument on the following colloquies between the attorneys and Bossom: Q. Do you come under that category that I described who are people that philosophically believe in the death penalty, but they personally would not want to be associated with personally returning a verdict that would result in someone actually being put to death by lethal injection? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you think those feelings could impair your ability to return a death penalty? A. It would depend upon the evidence that was produced. Q. If you listen to all the evidence and everything is sojust thejust blatantly horrible, terrible, double murder, and the defense didn't give you any reason not to kill Todd Wessinger, can you consider the death penalty? A. Yes. Q. Yes? A. Yes. These excerpts do not, however, accurately portray Bossom's attitudes, as they do not reveal the obvious reservations that Bossom had about her ability to return the death penalty. In her juror questionnaire, Bossom stated that she hoped she would never have to make a decision regarding someone's life. During questioning, she reiterated that she hoped she would not be the one that would have to make a decision regarding someone's longevity. The following excerpts also reveal this reluctance: A. I don't think the number of people [victims] is the determining factor. (In whether she could give the death penalty.) Q. What would be the determining factor for you? A. I don't know that I could vote for the death penalty. I don't know that I would not, but I don't know that I could. Q.... You do have some reservations about whether or not you could return a death penalty in a case of this type; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And that could that could impair your ability to return a death penalty? A. Possibly. Q. And you personally would have a problem with being responsible for this defendant being put to death by a lethal injection at some future date? A. Yes. Q. And those feelings,___ extraneous of the evidence, those feelings could ___ and I use the words could impair your ability to return a death penalty? A. Possibly, yes. Q. When you say possibly, yes, you believe they could, don't you? A. Yes. Q. Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but you appear to be a little apprehensive about answering questions. Maybe you are not too thrilled to be here. Am I wrong? A. No. I'm very apprehensive about the questions that you're asking me. Q. Okay. Why is that? A. Because of my uncertainty and what's being asked of me. Q. In answer to some of Mr. Sinquefield's questions, he saidyou said you thought you might be impaired in bringing back a death penalty. What did you mean by that? A. That I'm for the opinion to choose not to judge others. Q.... And you felt that Bill Hecker is all wet and his client should be put to death, could you do that? A. I don't know. The State's challenge was granted, and the defense objected. Reviewing all of these excerpts, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion on granting the challenge. Bossom's obvious discomfort at the mere thought of possibly having to consider imposing the death penalty on another human being shows that her beliefs could indeed substantially impair her from fulfilling her duties as a juror should she have to choose between the death penalty or life in prison. We additionally note that Bossom admitted that she would have a problem with a defendant who did not testify on his own behalf: Q. Well, what kind of problems would you have? A. The fact that I believe an innocent person would have no qualms about admitting or Q. About getting up there and testifying? A. Saying that I'm innocent. Q. Okay. A. And saying why I'm innocent. Q. If you were instructed by the judge that you had to put that aside, do you think you could do that, or do you think that would prejudice you? A. I think it's a feeling that would remain. Q. You think it would remain? A. Yes. Q. Even if you took an oath as a juror, you think you still would have some problems with that? A. Very possibly, yes. Given this further evidence of Bossom's inability to respect defendant's Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify, we certainly cannot say the trial judge erred in granting this challenge for cause. This assignment of error thus lacks merit as to prospective juror Bossom.