Opinion ID: 1464908
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Carol Holt

Text: Mr. Middleton claims that his trial counsel knew during voir dire that his penalty phase strategy would be based on his claim that he was suffering from a methamphetamine psychosis at the time he murdered Mr. Pinegar. He claims that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to strike for cause or peremptorily remove juror Carol Holt based on her answers to voir dire questions that he alleges indicated that she was unwilling to consider mental health evidence as mitigating evidence. A prospective juror may be excluded for cause only if the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his or her duties as a juror in accordance with the instructions and oath. State v. Rousan, 961 S.W.2d 831, 839 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 961, 118 S.Ct. 2387, 141 L.Ed.2d 753 (1998). The qualifications of a prospective juror are not determined conclusively by focusing on a single response, but are considered in the context of the entire examination. Middleton, 995 S.W.2d at 460. Mr. Middleton points to the following exchange between defense counsel and Ms. Holt in support of his argument: Q. Is your view of the death penalty do you have strong views on the death penalty? A. Yes. I think that I agree with this lady here in the green pants. Q. Ms. Adams? A. Yeah. We're talking in generalities right now, and we haven't discussed exactly what we're talking about. And I think sometimes we have to view what the circumstances are before we can say what we would choose to do. Q. We're not asking you to tell us what you would choose to do. And I understand, it's frustrating. And I understand your frustration. And it's a difficult thing to question people about, but we need to have an idea of people's views on this issue. A. I understand. You've had some really difficult questions and we're talking about something very serious. It's a tremendous responsibility. And to just say what I think I would do in that situation would be you can't really know until you view all of those things. And there are certain situations, certain circumstances that don't warrant the death penalty and I think there are some that do. Q. Do you thinkAnd I'll ask you some of the questions I've asked others about mitigating factors. Do you think if you were asked to evaluate mitigating factors, that mental health type of evidence is something you could consider? A. Yes. I think I could, but I also think that sometimes it's used by lawyers to manipulate the system. You know what I'm saying? And I think that you have to really look at all the evidence and all of the things that are posed to you. But I think, yes, there are some. There are not as many as what we allow, I think. Q. And it sounds like you're saying what you said earlier, that sometimes you need to really evaluate something before you can know how you can react? A. Yes. Q. Do you think if you were asked to consider, as mitigation, issues of drug and alcohol use, is that something you could consider? A. I can't say for sure. I can't sayI can say yes but I just don't know. Mr. Middleton contends that this exchange shows that Juror Holt was unwilling to or unsure she could consider evidence supporting his defense that he was not fully responsible for his acts because he was suffering from methamphetamine psychosis at the time of the crime. But, the exchange does not so demonstrate. Defense counsel first asked Juror Holt generally about whether she could consider mental health evidence as a mitigating factor. She said she could, but some uses of it she believed went too far. Counsel then asked whether she could consider drug and alcohol use in particular as evidence in mitigation, and she said she could not say for sure. If general use of drugs and alcohol was itself a statutory mitigating circumstance, this would be a cause for concern. But, drug or alcohol use constitutes a statutory mitigating circumstance only if it rises to the level of causing a psychosis. See sec. 565.032. Juror Holt was not asked, and did not state, that she would not consider the fact defendant suffered from drug or alcohol psychosis as a mitigating factor if the law so required, or that she would not follow the law in this regard. The relevant inquiry is whether a prospective juror can follow the law. State v. Chaney, 967 S.W.2d 47, 57 (Mo. banc 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1021, 119 S.Ct. 551, 142 L.Ed.2d 458 (1998). In effect, defense counsel suggests that, because defendant planned to argue that his use of alcohol and drugs should be considered as mitigating, therefore he had a right to ask each juror to commit that they would in fact consider such drug or alcohol use to be mitigating. But, the relevant law and penalty phase jury instructions only require that a juror shall consider any evidence which he considers to be aggravating or mitigating. [3] They do not require the juror to specify, in advance of the evidence, which evidence he thinks he will consider to be aggravating or mitigating. Juror Holt was not required to commit at the voir dire stage that she would consider evidence of alcohol and drug use in mitigation of punishment. Counsel was not ineffective for failing to move to strike her for cause. Because Juror Holt was qualified, Mr. Middleton cannot show that he was prejudiced by counsel's decision not to peremptorily remove her from the jury. Mr. Middleton was only entitled to a panel of jurors who were qualified, not to his favorite jurors among those who were qualified. Ham v. State, 7 S.W.3d 433, 438-440 (Mo. App. W.D.1999). He has not shown that it is reasonably probable that the result of the trial would have been different had another venire member sat on the jury in the place of Juror Holt.