Opinion ID: 1707183
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Juror Harris

Text: ś 137. Like Juror Merideth, Evans had not exhausted his peremptory challenges at the time his challenge for cause was denied. As such, this assignment of error was not properly preserved and is therefore barred from consideration on appeal. See Chase v. State, 645 So.2d 829, 845 (Miss. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1123, 115 S.Ct. 2279, 132 L.Ed.2d 282 (1995), reh'g denied, 515 U.S. 1179, 116 S.Ct. 20, 132 L.Ed.2d 903 (1995); Berry v. State, 575 So.2d 1, 9 (Miss. 1990). However, without waiving the bar, we alternatively address the merits of this argument. ś 138. Juror Harris did in fact serve on the petit jury and indicated during individual sequestered voir dire that she knew about the facts on the case from due to television coverage. Harris also indicated that she knew about Evans' escape from jail. ś 139. In Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445, 457 (Miss.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1230, 105 S.Ct. 1232, 84 L.Ed.2d 369 (1985), reh'g denied, 470 U.S. 1089, 105 S.Ct. 1858, 85 L.Ed.2d 154 (1985), this Court held a juror who may be removed on a challenge for cause is one against whom a cause for challenge exists that would likely effect his competency or his impartiality at trial. In Billiot, this Court relied on Armstrong v. State, 214 So.2d 589, 593 (Miss.1968), cert. denied, 395 U.S. 965, 89 S.Ct. 2109, 23 L.Ed.2d 750 (1969), wherein this Court held that [t]hose [jurors] who say that they could follow the evidence and the instructions of the court should be retained, and those who cannot follow the instructions of the court should be released. ś 140. Harris repeatedly indicated that she could be impartial and follow the instructions of the court. Harris stated that she would consider mitigating circumstances and would make the State prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, Harris stated that she had not formed an opinion about Evans' guilt or innocence or what punishment he should receive. Evans chose not to utilize a peremptory challenge to strike Harris. As such, the record does not reveal that the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to strike Juror Harris for cause.