Opinion ID: 1807431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: State's Cause Challenges

Text: Boppre asserts that the district court erred in excusing two venirepersons, Helen Hort and Bertha Neideffer, from jury service because of their opposition to the death penalty. Boppre concedes that the law is, as we stated in State v. Hankins, 232 Neb. 608, 441 N.W.2d 854 (1989), that it is entirely permissible to exclude from jury service venirepersons whose views on capital punishment are such as to prevent or substantially impair their ability to impartially apply the law to the evidence. See, also, Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986); State v. Bird Head, 225 Neb. 822, 408 N.W.2d 309 (1987); State v. Burchett, 224 Neb. 444, 399 N.W.2d 258 (1986); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2006(3) (Reissue 1989) (which provides that it is good cause to challenge one called for jury service in a capital case if his or her opinions are such as to prevent finding the accused guilty). However, Boppre asserts that neither Hort nor Neideffer indicated an inability to be impartial. The district court excused Hort on the basis of the following colloquy: THE COURT: Okay. Two counts in this case have first degree murder, and for the potential punishment that can be imposed includes the death penalty on those two counts. People's attitudes toward the death penalty are relevant in determining whether they should sit on a jury in a case or not. How many of you, we have 13 people left, how many of you oppose the death penalty? One. Does anyone oppose, again? Okay. That one was Mrs. Hort, right? JUROR HORT: (Nods head affirmatively.) THE COURT: Do you believe it's not right to do that? JUROR HORT: I believe it's not right. .... MR. TABOR: ... Now do you any of you believe that your convictions are so strong that you cannot follow the instructions as he reads them to you and gives you a written copy of the instructions? JUROR HORT: I'm sure I can. .... MR. TABOR: Do you think it's true that every citizen that is called to jury duty should set aside their opinions as to whether any law is wrong or right and follow the law as the judge instructs you to do? JUROR HORT: It's hard to state my opinion but, like the judge says, you have to be neutral, and I don't know. I doI feel my convictions, what I just said, I do not believe in capital punishment. MR. TABOR: Do you understand that as a juror in a case like this if there's a conviction that the [jury] has no say-so in the sentencing whatsoever? .... JUROR HORT: ... I understand that. MR. TABOR: Given the fact, do you think you could follow the judge's instructions...? JUROR HORT: I'm sure I could follow the judge's instructions. MR. TABOR: You feel that you can impartially weigh the evidence presented by both sides in this case? JUROR HORT: I think I could listen to it. That's a hard question to ask, I'm sure I could, I just know what the end result could be and if that's not my worry as far asI don't know how to answer that question. I really don't. .... MR. TABOR: Do you think you could set aside your opinion ... and decide [this case] in a fair and impartial manner both as to the defendant and as to the State? JUROR HORT: I don't know. I can't answer that question. I can't answer that. MR. TABOR: If the judge should instruct you to put aside personal opinions when deciding this case you would follow his instructions, wouldn't you? JUROR HORT: Yes, I believe so. .... THE COURT: The bottom line is you believe in your heart you would be influenced; is that right? .... JUROR HORT: I believe so. THE COURT: That it would affect you in reaching that ultimate decision of guilt or innocence? JUROR HORT: Yes. The district court excused Neideffer after she indicated that she was opposed to the death penalty and expressed the following reservations about serving as a juror where the death penalty was a potential sentence: JUROR NEIDEFFER: ... I would like to say that I don't feel that I would like to serve as a juror for someone who is up on these charges. THE COURT: Because of the view you are afraid? JUROR NEIDEFFER: Because of my view and because of my religious beliefs. THE COURT: You are not the only one, by the way. JUROR NEIDEFFER: I just want to make that statement because I don't believe in capital punishment. .... JUROR NEIDEFFER: I don't want to be on a jury where somebody might be condemned to death because I would feel guilty. The retention or rejection of a venireperson as a juror is a matter of discretion with the trial court. State v. Rice, 231 Neb. 202, 435 N.W.2d 889 (1989); State v. Coffman, 227 Neb. 149, 416 N.W.2d 243 (1987). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Hort's and Neideffer's views were such that they would prevent or substantially impair the venirepersons' ability to be impartial. Although Hort stated she could follow the judge's instructions, she ultimately expressed the view that her views on capital punishment would influence her decision. Similarly, Neideffer stated she could not render a guilty verdict without feeling guilty. Both indicated that because of their opposition to the death penalty, they could not perform their duties as jurors.