Opinion ID: 1709393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Failure to Challenge Juror Tobin for Cause

Text: Gore argues that his counsel was ineffective for the failure to present a challenge for cause with regard to juror Tobin at the resentencing, after Tobin stated during voir dire that an impoverished background may not be a proper mitigating circumstance. Nickerson's failure to challenge this juror for cause was not deficient performance. We have reviewed the record and conclude that Tobin did not give unequivocal answers that would render him subject to removal for cause. See Spencer v. State, 842 So.2d 52, 68 (Fla. 2003) (It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his or her opinion or impression and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court. (citing Castro v. State, 644 So.2d 987, 990 (Fla.1994))). Instead, Tobin also stated that he would be fair and impartial and would follow the law as instructed by the court. There was also arguably no prejudice as the trial court likely would not have excused Tobin for cause had this challenge been made. See Dufour v. State, 905 So.2d 42, 54 (Fla. 2005) (holding that the ineffective assistance claim for failing to strike a juror was without merit, because the juror was properly permitted to serve because she clearly indicated an ability to follow the trial court's instructions and weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors through later responses, despite the initial statement of bias by the juror).