Opinion ID: 1718692
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Rodney Traweek

Text: Defendant complains that the trial court denied his cause challenge as to Rodney Traweek, who in defendant's view, would not genuinely consider life imprisonment. A review of the record reveals that Traweek was questioned in Pool 1, Panel 4. Traweek's voir dire responses to the judge demonstrated an even-handed approach to capital punishment. Likewise, Traweek indicated that he would not necessarily vote death automatically. In response to defense counsel's questions, Traweek ranked himself as a seven on a scale of one to ten scale, with ten being most strongly in favor of the death penalty. When asked his opinion of retardation as a mitigating circumstance, Traweek responded: If it's proven evidence that is an issue in a case, I would consider it. Now I would have to feel one hundred percent with the evidence that I heard to change my mind against the death penalty. I guess to put it easier I'd say it may go from a seven to about a four or a five. When counsel broached the subject of whether the prospective jurors' religious beliefs impacted their views on capital punishment, Traweek indicated that he ascribes to the biblical eye for an eye. Counsel asked whether Traweek extended that belief to a life for a life, yielding the following personal perspective: In some cases I would believe that. I will say this. If I was sitting here and I was convicted of first degree murder, it would be better for me and my family for me to be sentenced to death because I wouldn't want my kids and my family to see me in prison the rest of my life. Traweek clarified for counsel that his religious convictions did not necessarily dictate to him that the only appropriate response for murder would be to take the life of the perpetrator: There may be some situations that may have caused him to prevent that death or murder that I'd have to listen to and say had this not been the situation, it may not have happened. I'd just have to listen to all of the evidence. I'm about a seven, which means there's still some doubt or some ... something in me that might say the best punishment for him is the life imprisonment. The bottom line is to punish him. What would be the best punishment? If it's death, then it's death. If it's life imprisonment, to me it'd be life in prison.... [A]fter I heard all of the evidence from both sides, then I would decide. Could I give a man the life sentence. Yes. Could I see him in ... I mean the death sentence? Absolutely. Could I see him go to prison for life. Yes. Traweek reiterated that if he were on trial for capital murder, I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life in prison. That would be the biggest punishment to me. Counsel based his cause challenge as to Traweek on the following grounds: Although he for the most part gave right answers, when he got to the part regarding his belief in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth he got very forceful. The court denied the challenge, basing that ruling on stated reasons, including: I find that he is a very strong-minded person ... [who] appears to be equal to giving life or death. With him he considers life imprisonment even worse of a punishment. But he said unequivocally to me and to Mr. Ruddick that he would listen and consider all of the mitigating factors and would be able in some cases [to] give a life sentence. And then if the situation warranted the death sentence, he would impose the death sentence. Nothing in Traweek's voir dire as a whole suggests a leaning toward automatically imposing the death penalty. Accordingly, no abuse of discretion is apparent, and the trial judge properly denied the defense challenge for cause as to Traweek. Neither the State nor the defense challenged Traweek peremptorily. However, defense counsel subsequently issued a peremptory backstrike to remove Traweek.