Opinion ID: 1392571
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Juror Rivers

Text: The court qualified prospective juror Sheila Rivers, and appellant excluded her by use of a peremptory strike. Appellant claims Ms. Rivers should have been disqualified by the court because she stated that the mitigating factors of age and background would make no difference in her sentencing decision. The responses of challenged prospective jurors must be examined in context of the entire voir dire. State v. Gaskins , 284 S.C. 105, 112, 326 S.E. (2d) 132, 137, cert. denied , 471 U.S. 1120, 105 S.Ct. 2368, 86 L.Ed. (2d) 266 (1985). Ms. Rivers stated that she could give the state and appellant a fair and impartial trial, would accept and follow the law as charged, could vote for either life imprisonment or the death penalty, and would consider mitigating circumstances as instructed by the trial court. Qualification of this juror was proper in light of her entire voir dire testimony. Additionally, because appellant failed to use all of his peremptory strikes, he is unable to show any prejudice. See State v. Singleton , 284 S.C. 388, 326 S.E. (2d) 153, cert. denied , 471 U.S. 1111, 105 S.Ct. 2346, 85 L.Ed. (2d) 863 (1985).