Opinion ID: 1529733
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: did the trial judge commit reversible error in failing to discharge, for cause, juror graf?

Text: During individual voir dire concerning juror attitudes about the death penalty, Graf volunteered the information that she had previously been a victim of a break-in at her home. She asked, Does this have to do with a break-in type robbery? When the court asked her to elaborate, she stated, My home was robbed twice and I saw the party and I don't think I could be very impartial in.... The prosecutor explained that this was the robbery of a store, and Graf stated that she ... probably wouldn't have any.... Before she could finish her answer, appellant's counsel interrupted her. She then stated: I was frightened so badly because I found them in my home and I just ... I just would't want to be involved with anything like that. But this break-in, I could make that general and I probably could be impartial.  (Emphasis added.) The trial court reserved his ruling on a challenge for cause, and specifically invited defense counsel to inquire further. He failed to do so. In determining whether a juror should have been stricken for cause, we have declared that such determination lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed unless his action was clearly erroneous. Caldwell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 634 S.W.2d 405, 407 (1982). It is clear that the trial court felt that Graf could be fair and impartial, and in fact, had been rehabilitated by her subsequent questions and answers in individual voir dire. Clearly there is no abuse of discretion here.