Opinion ID: 2550813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Juror Margaret Calhoun

Text: In this assignment of error, defense counsel argues that the trial court was biased against the defense during voir dire, employing one-sided efforts to rehabilitate pro-death penalty jurors, while seeking to exclude jurors favoring a life sentence. He also claims the court held the defense to a higher standard with regard to cause challenges, while robotically granting the State's cause challenges without analysis. A trial judge is presumed to be impartial. State v. Edwards, 420 So.2d 663, 673 (La.1982); State v. Collins, 288 So.2d 602, 604 (La.1974). Moreover, in State v. Jacobs, 99-1659 (La.6/29/01), 789 So.2d 1280, this Court emphasized the importance of an active role for the trial court in jury selection, in part, so as not to let prospective jurors slip through voir dire unrehabilitated. Jacobs, 99-1659 at 9-13, 789 So.2d at 1286-88. According to defense counsel, the record is littered with examples of the court failing to be impartial during voir dire. Defense counsel claims the trial court went out of its way to save potential juror, Margaret Calhoun, after she clearly stated her unwillingness to consider a life sentence. A review of the record reveals that when the court asked, . . . are there any among you who would refuse or fail to consider imposing a sentence of life without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence? Ms. Calhoun raised her hand. Then, the court asked, You're not opposed to the death penalty in proper cases. Right? When Ms. Calhoun responded affirmatively, the court then explained the process of a capital trial, and Ms. Calhoun stated that she could consider aggravating and mitigating factors and would not prejudge the case. We find that the trial court did not err as the court was only fulfilling its role as outlined in Jacobs.