Opinion ID: 1959682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Veniremember Leiter

Text: When the prosecutor asked Leiter if she could consider imposing the death penalty, she said that she has a little difficulty with the death penalty but that she guess[ed] she could consider it. She continued on to say that she did not think that her ability to seriously consider voting for the death penalty would be impaired, but she did not believe that she could be the one to sign a verdict recommending a sentence of death. When asked by defense counsel if she could serve on a jury that was considering death, assuming she was not the foreperson and did not have to sign off on the verdict, Leiter replied that she believed she could. She also stated that she believed that she could set aside her personal biases and be fair and impartial. However, when asked later whether she was leaning towards life without parole or death she said, I would listen to the evidence, but I have to be honest and say that I would tend to lean for life. When questioned further, she went on to say that she would try to consider both punishments equally. The trial court sustained the prosecutor's motion to strike for cause because Leiter explicitly stated that she did not believe that she could be the one who signed the verdict form if the jury imposed the death penalty. Since Leiter said she would have some difficulty imposing the death penalty, she would lean toward imposing a life sentence over death, and she could not be the one to sign a verdict sentencing Johnson to death, the trial court, aided by its assessment of her demeanor in resolving any ambiguity in favor of the State, did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the prosecutor's motion to strike for cause.