Opinion ID: 844217
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Milton T.

Text: Defendant also challenges the excusal of Prospective Juror Milton T. On his questionnaire, Milton T. indicated that he could impose the death penalty or life without possibility of parole in an appropriate case. But he also stated, If there are people strong willed enough to give the other person the death penalty, that's that. I'm not sure that I can handle it.... I just don't know if I could mentally or morally handle sentencing another person to [death]. Milton T. indicated that he was in favor of the death penalty if a child were intentionally killed and did not indicate that he would always vote for life; he agreed that he could follow the law. He also wrote that, because of his moral and religious views, he was reluctant to judge others, but that he could set aside his personal feelings and follow the law. In response to a question concerning whether there was any reason he would prefer not to serve he wrote, I don't like deciding a case of such a serious moral matter. When the court questioned Milton T. about these responses he stated, The situation with my duty as a juror, I guess I would have to go beyond the way I feel and make the decision. He stated, however, that based on what he knew of the circumstances of this case, it would be really hard for me to come up with something like that. He agreed that if the jury reached the penalty phase, he was capable of following the law and weighing whatever was presented. But in response to questioning by the prosecutor, he stated he was very uncomfortable with the prospect of deciding whether to impose capital punishment. Asked whether he would have difficulty making the decision to return a verdict of death he stated, It's my job to do so, so I would. But my own personal self, I would have to deal with it after I leave from here. Asked to clarify whether he could vote that the defendant is to die he replied, I can't say if I can answer that truthfully or not because I haven't been through it .... I'm not sure if I could be able to go through with it. I don't know if I would be able to come up with that verdict or not. The prosecutor asked, Is it your opinion then that regardless of the evidence... is it your state of mind now that you don't know if you could, in fact, come in with a verdict that the defendant is to die. He responded, Right. The court granted the prosecutor's challenge for cause, explaining, I think emotionally, truly from his demeanor and even while you two are asking questions of other jurors, I watched him and I watched his body language, and I think that his personal views would substantially impair him from performing his duties as a juror ... and I think that the man is trying. But I don't think that he can do the job under the standard. Milton T.'s answers demonstrate that he was not opposed to the death penalty in theory, but that he was extremely reluctant to make the decision whether someone should be executed. Although he expressed a willingness to follow the law, when asked whether he could actually impose the death sentence, he indicated that he did not know whether he could, regardless of what the evidence might be. His equivocal answers, combined with the trial court's observations of his demeanor, convinced the trial court that his ability to perform the duties of a juror in a capital case would be substantially impaired by his reluctance to be personally responsible for sentencing someone to death. Giving appropriate deference to the trial court's determination of the prospective juror's state of mind based on its firsthand observations, we find no error. (See People v. Solomon (2010) 49 Cal.4th 792, 836 [112 Cal.Rptr.3d 244, 234 P.3d 501] [trial court did not err in excusing juror who, although not opposed to the death penalty in theory, was unable to state that she could set aside her reluctance to be personally responsible for sentencing someone to death and vote for the death penalty in an appropriate case]; People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 981 [trial court did not err in excusing prospective juror on the basis that she could not personally impose the death penalty despite viewing it as an appropriate punishment].)