Opinion ID: 2265144
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ronald Vladyka

Text: Defendant similarly challenges the exclusion of prospective juror Ronald Vladyka. Mr. Vladyka expressed ambivalence about the possibility of voting for a death sentence. Q. Do you have any feelings or beliefs about the death penalty? A. I don't believe in it. Q. Under any circumstances? A. Well, I just  I don't know. I just don't believe in it. I really can't give a reason why. Q. Do you think there are any crimes where the death penalty is an appropriate penalty? A. Well  no. Q. None at all? A. No, not really. In response to rehabilitating questions from defense counsel, Mr. Vladyka indicated, with significant reluctance, that he could follow his oath as a juror and vote for a death sentence: I guess if everything was in place and I believed in it, I mean, you know it is hard to say yes or no. The court excused Mr. Vladyka after the following question and answer in which he expressed his inability to announce a sentence of death in open court: Q. If maybe you are the Foreperson, would you be able to announce that verdict in open Court? A. No. Again, the trial court was within its discretion to excuse Mr. Vladyka. [A] juror's bias for or against capital punishment need not be shown with `unmistakable clarity.' Pennington, supra, 119 N.J. at 588, 575 A. 2d 816 (quoting Ramseur, supra, 106 N.J. at 256, 524 A. 2d 188). The prospective juror in this instance indicated an inability to fairly weigh the mitigating and aggravating factors prior to reaching a decision on sentence.