Opinion ID: 1060569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prospective Juror Brooks

Text: During individual voir dire, Barbara Brooks was called as a potential juror. When asked by District Attorney General Woodall whether she could impose the death penalty in this case, Ms. Brooks responded that she could not do so for religious reasons. Despite further questioning by General Woodall, Ms. Brooks maintained that she did not believe in the death penalty and that she could not and would not impose such a sentence. The trial court, as well, questioned Ms. Brooks regarding whether she could impose the death penalty. In response to the court's questioning, she again stated that she could not impose the death penalty no matter what the crime was because she does not believe that a person's life should be taken because of it. She further admitted that the death penalty is out of the question for [her] and she would never consider imposing the death penalty on the appellant or anyone else. Defense counsel, in an attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brooks, asked her whether she could fairly consider the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and keep an open mind as to the three possibilities for sentencing in this case, to which Ms. Brooks responded affirmatively. The court again questioned Ms. Brooks as to whether she could impose the death penalty if it was called for by the law and the facts. Although Ms. Brooks responded that she could consider the sentence of life without the possibility of parole and that she could hear the evidence, she stated I don't think I could be fair at that because of the death penalty ... the only thing that hinders me is when you said death penalty. That's where it stops with me. Despite this statement, defense counsel was again able to illicit answers from Ms. Brooks that raised concern as to her position on the death penalty. As a result, the trial court instructed Ms. Brooks to just say how you feel. After further equivocation by the prospective juror, the trial court asked her point blank if the death penalty was out; she responded, Forget it. At that point, the State challenged Barbara Brooks for cause and the court sustained the challenge finding: ... I finally put it to her as blank, I said, The death penalty is out? She said, The death penalty is out, the death penalty is out. I will not impose it and she said it multiple, multiple times. Although Ms. Brooks' position on the death penalty was ambiguous at certain times during her voir dire examination, we can reach no rational conclusion other than finding that Ms. Brooks had a definite opposition to imposing the death penalty. Giving deference to the trial court who was able to observe this prospective juror, we conclude that the constitutional standard for excusing jurors due to their views on the death penalty was met.