Opinion ID: 1712255
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Keith Martin

Text: During voir dire, potential juror Keith Martin responded to questioning from defense counsel as follows: MR. LARRE: ... Now, Mr. Martin, on your questionnaire, you said that you were for the death penalty, you could vote for the death penalty. And you also said that you know [Assistant District Attorney Thomas] Kliebert. Not only do you know Mr. Kliebert, but he's your landlord. MR. MARTIN: Right. MR. LARRE: So that means the land that you farm, his family or his company owns; is that correct? MR. MARTIN: More or less, yes. MR. LARRE: All right. He's going to be here doing a lot of the trial and talking to the jurors and making an argument and so forth. Would you tend to listen to what Mr. Kliebert says more than, say, what I say or  because you know him so well and you deal with him and you work with him on your farm? MR. MARTIN: I don't think it would influence me. I was just asked if I had any kind of association and I just stated it. I just wanted y'all to know that I did. MR. LARRE: But you do know Mr. Kliebert pretty well and you have for a lot of years? MR. MARTIN: I knew him for a while, yeah. MR. LARRE: Now, you also said that you might have a hardship because it's not [sic] time to plant and do what needs to be done for your sugar cane? MR. MARTIN: Right. MR. LARRE: And that's your livelihood. That's how you feed your family. MR. MARTIN: That would be a big distraction. MR. LARRE: A big distraction. So that means you would be thinking about that while you're here trying to listen to what's going on in the trial? MR. MARTIN: Probably so. After listening to this exchange, the trial judge questioned Martin further: THE COURT: Mr. Martin, you indicated that you, in fact, lease some land from Mr. Kliebert's family. If after the evidence in this case you felt that the State had not met it's [sic] burden,... hadn't proved the case, could you vote not guilty and look at Mr. Kliebert the next day with a clean conscience? MR. MARTIN: I didn't say it'd influence me. I just  I was asked the question and I just answered the question that I had an association with him. THE COURT: Right. But would that influence you in making a decision? MR. MARTIN: No. THE COURT: And you would have no problem facing him the next day  MR. MARTIN: No. No problem. Following this colloquy, defense counsel challenged Martin on two grounds. First, he challenged Martin on the basis of his relationship with the assistant district attorney. Second, he challenged Martin based on his statement that he would be distracted if forced to be away from his sugarcane crop. In response to the defense challenge, Assistant District Attorney Kliebert argued: Your honor, he didn't say I was his sole landlord. I think I have about 40 acres out of 600. The trial judge ultimately denied the challenge for cause, ruling: I'm going to deny the cause [challenge]. I questioned [him] again and he indicated he had no problem with Mr. Kliebert being his landlord. He would vote his conscience. And that if he had to, it would be a hardship, and in the sense it would be a hardship on anybody, but he could listen, pay attention to the facts of this case and decide the case if he had to. The law in Louisiana is clear that a relationship between a prospective juror and the district attorney does not automatically disqualify the prospective juror from service. State v. Jones, 345 So.2d 1157, 1161 (La.1977); State v. Fairley, 25,951, p. 3 (La.App. 2 Cir. 5/4/94), 645 So.2d 213, 216, writ denied, 94-2909 (La.3/24/95), 651 So.2d 287. The existence of a relationship, even one of blood or marriage, is not sufficient to disqualify a juror unless the facts reveal that the nature of the relationship is such that it is reasonable to conclude it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict. LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 797. The law does not require that a jury be composed of individuals who are totally unacquainted with the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel. It requires that jurors be fair and unbiased. Fairley, 25,951 at 3, 645 So.2d at 216. However, a prospective juror's statement that he or she will be fair and impartial is not binding on the trial court. If the revealed details of the relationship are such that bias, prejudice or impartiality may be reasonably inferred, a juror may be properly refused for cause. State v. Lewis, 391 So.2d 1156, 1158 (La. 1980). At issue here is a challenge for cause based on a potential juror's status as a lessee of the prosecuting attorney. The issue of whether the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the lead prosecutor disqualifies a potential juror due to the appearance of bias, prejudice or impartiality has not previously been addressed by this court. Louisiana has no per se rule requiring disqualification upon proof of a landlord-tenant relationship. [2] In Louisiana, LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 797(3), which permits a challenge for cause in cases of a personal (by blood, marriage,... friendship, or enmity) or employment relationship between the potential juror and the district attorney, does not specifically mention the landlord-tenant relationship; therefore the relationship does not appear to be inherently suspect. Nevertheless, the purpose of allowing challenges for cause is to secure a fair and impartial trial. State v. Rogers, 241 La. 841, 886, 132 So.2d 819, 834 (1961). The key to securing this right is to ascertain whether there is anything in the disclosed relationship between a potential juror and the district attorney (whatever form that relationship takes) that would influence the juror's judgment or that would persuade him or her to decide the case on any basis other than fairness and the evidence presented in court. See, State v. Groves, 311 So.2d 230, 234-235 (La.1975), overruled on other grounds by State v. Lee, 331 So.2d 455 (La.1975). For example, in Groves, a case addressing a business relationship between a potential juror and the district attorney, this court held that the trial court did not err in denying a challenge for cause of a prospective juror who was manager of a car dealership from which the district attorney had purchased an automobile; the evidence demonstrated there was nothing in the relationship that would influence the juror's judgment or persuade him to decide the case on any basis other than fairness and the evidence. Id. Similarly, in State v. Lee, 559 So.2d 1310, 1317 (La.1990), we held the fact that a prospective juror had previously retained the district attorney in an unrelated legal matter and might do so again in the future was insufficient to warrant a challenge for cause absent a further showing of bias. In each of these instances, the prospective jurors declared that the disclosed relationship would not affect their deliberations, and there was no evidence of any overriding consideration that might impact the jurors' ability to act with impartiality. By way of contrast, in State v. Monroe, 366 So.2d 1345, 1347 (La.1978), this court reversed a conviction and remanded after finding that a challenge for cause should have been sustained against a prospective juror who, at the time of trial, was employed as an assistant district attorney assigned to the Career Criminal Bureau, in the same office as the assistant district attorneys who were trying the case. Although the prospective juror testified that he would be fair and impartial, we held that such a statement is not binding on the court if the revealed details of the relationship are such that bias or prejudice may be reasonably implied. Id. Likewise, in State v. Lewis, supra , we held that a cause challenge should have been sustained against a prospective juror who had formerly served as a law clerk to the district attorney and who had a job application pending at the time of trial. A similar conclusion was reached in State v. Fairley, supra , where the court of appeal held that it was reasonable to conclude that a potential juror who worked as a babysitter for the district attorney, having extensive contact with his family and deriving a significant portion of her income from that position, would be influenced by that relationship in arriving at a verdict. Each of these cases involved an employment at will relationship (or, as in Lewis, a potential employment at will relationship) in which the closeness of the ties and the evidence of possible economic repercussions from the juror's service were such that it was reasonable to infer the juror would be influenced by that relationship, the juror's statement to the contrary notwithstanding. The situation in this case is distinguishable. The landlord-tenant relationship presented here is distinctly different from the employment relationships outlined above, where certain persons (for example, law clerks in the district attorney's office, assistant district attorneys or household employees of district attorneys), by the very nature of their employment, are likely to be affected in their judgment by the employment relationship. Unlike those cases, there is no evidence in this case that a significant portion of Martin's livelihood is dependent on the good will of the assistant district attorney. To the contrary, the record reveals Martin is an independent businessman (a sugar cane farmer) and only about six percent of the acreage that Martin farms is leased from the assistant district attorney. Neither is there evidence that the lease between the parties is anything other than an arm's length transaction, or that the relationship requires any regular contact or marked familiarity between Martin and Kliebert. In short, there is no evidence to indicate that Kliebert wields any influence over Martin, or that economic repercussions might ensue from Martin's service on the jury. In fact, Martin was firm and unwavering in his conviction that the association would not influence his judgment. The trial court, weighing the entirety of Martin's voir dire responses, found his assertions in this regard to be credible. While the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between a potential juror and an assistant district attorney bears scrutiny, as does every instance in which there is some disclosed association with a defendant, a victim, a prosecuting attorney or defense counsel, each case must be decided on its individual facts. In this case, Martin's responses during voir dire do not reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or impartiality may be reasonably inferred. In fact, those responses reveal that Martin was more concerned with being away from his crop than with his position as a lessee of the assistant district attorney. Considering Martin's responses to the voir dire examination as a whole, the record supports a finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's challenge for cause on the grounds of Martin's relationship with the assistant district attorney. In a similar vein, the record demonstrates no support for defendant's contention that the trial court erred in denying his challenge for cause based on Martin's statement that it would be a big distraction if he were forced to be absent from his sugar cane crop. During examination by the State, Martin first brought the crop situation to the court's attention, stating that it would be tough to arrange for care of his crops during any period of sequestration. When asked if it would be possible, however, he responded: Well, I guess. Upon further questioning, he stated that if I had to I'll have to do it. The trial court listened to these responses, and indeed to the entirety of the voir dire questioning, and determined that although Martin indicated serving on the jury would be a hardship, he could listen, pay attention, and decide the case if it were necessary. As mentioned above, a trial court is afforded broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and these rulings will be reversed only when a review of the voir dire record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion. Cross, 93-1189 at 7, 658 So.2d at 686. Given Martin's responses to the voir dire as a whole, and not just selected inquiries from defense counsel, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defense's challenge for cause in this respect.