Opinion ID: 2382089
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Veniremember Dirnberger

Text: When the prosecutor recited the same question to Veniremember Dirnberger, she stated that she could consider the death penalty. On the issue of burden of proof, however, Dirnberger equivocated. When defense counsel asked the panel How many of you feel that [Lyons] is more likely guilty of murder first degree because we are already talking to you about the sentencing? Dirnberger raised her hand and replied yes. But later, Dirnberger stated that she understood that she was being questioned as to only the hypothetical scenario of Lyons being found guilty. Though Dirnberger responded that she could consider the death penalty, it was the State that moved to strike her for cause. Any one response is not dispositive of a juror's qualifications. State v. Garrett, 627 S.W.2d 635, 642 (Mo. banc 1982). Every defendant has a right to jurors who will follow the law. State v. Smith, 649 S.W.2d 417, 422 (Mo. banc 1983). Dirnberger's answer that she understood the hypothetical nature of the sentencing questions did not entirely rehabilitate her admission that she would hold the State to a lesser burden of proof. The record does not support Lyons's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the motion to strike Dirnberger for cause.