Opinion ID: 1751529
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Delora Banks:

Text: The prosecutor exercised a challenge to remove Banks because she stated that she had conscientious scruples against the death penalty. The court accepted the challenge stating, This is the one that told the Court that she would automatically vote against the death penalty and then vacillated somewhat, back and forth, and we brought her into chambers for further voir dire. Mack's argument that conscientious scruples against the death penalty is not a race-neutral reason for striking a prospective juror when a challenge for cause has been denied against that juror must fail. Opposition to the death penalty is not in the same suspect classification as race and is therefore, a race neutral reason. Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657, (Miss. 1990) citing Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986); Johnson v. State, 529 So.2d 577, 584 (Miss. 1988) (Scruples against the death penalty are clearly race neutral). Mack's contention that the trial court was not acting in a neutral capacity because, while refusing to excuse Banks for cause, it observed that she was susceptible to peremptory challenge for that reason, is also without merit. This isolated comment, which merely stated the obvious, is not so significant as to remove the presumption of impartiality. Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657, 678 (Miss. 1990); Williams v. State, 383 So.2d 547 (Miss. 1979).