Opinion ID: 2623326
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prospective Juror Harold G.

Text: At the outset of voir dire, Prospective Juror Harold G. said he had no personal convictions that would cause him to automatically decide which penalty to impose and he could follow the trial court's instructions and reach an appropriate verdict. During the prosecution's examination, however, Harold G. confirmed he had answered yes to a questionnaire item asking, Do you believe there is any reason why you might have any difficulty in objectively and impartially serving as a juror in this case? The prosecutor then asked him if he would still answer no to the question posed to him on the questionnaire as to whether he could set aside his personal feelings about the death penalty law and follow the law as explained by the court. He replied that his answer would still be no. Although he made contradictory statements about his ability to set aside his own personal views and follow the law, Harold G. ended his examination with the declaration that he could not set aside his personal views. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing Harold G. for cause. The record does not support defendant's complaint that the trial court failed to ask enough questions during voir dire to determine whether the challenge for cause was proper.