Opinion ID: 2536189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cause Challenge

Text: Banks argues that the trial court erred in denying his cause challenge to a prospective juror whose daughter was recently robbed at gunpoint. However, we conclude that no reversible error occurred. This Court has explained that [a] trial court has great discretion when deciding whether to grant or deny a challenge for cause based on juror competency. Conde v. State, 860 So.2d 930, 939 (Fla.2003). This is because trial courts have a unique vantage point in their observation of jurors' voir dire responses. Id. As a result, this Court gives deference to a trial court's determination of a prospective juror's qualifications and will not overturn that determination absent manifest error. Id. The test trial courts employ for determining juror competency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court. Kopsho v. State, 959 So.2d 168, 170 (Fla.2007). In evaluating a juror's qualifications, the trial judge should evaluate all of the questions and answers posed to or received from the juror. Parker v. State, 641 So.2d 369, 373 (Fla.1994). A juror must be excused for cause if any reasonable doubt exists as to whether the juror possesses an impartial state of mind. Kopsho, 959 So.2d at 170; see also § 913.03(10), Fla. Stat. (2005) (explaining that one can challenge a juror for cause based upon the juror's state of mind regarding the defendant, the case, the person alleged to have been injured by the offense charged, or the person on whose complaint the prosecution instituted that will prevent the juror from acting with impartiality, but the formation of an opinion or impression regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not be a sufficient ground for challenge to a juror if he or she declares and the court determines that he or she can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence). In this case, the juror at issue twice assured the trial court that his daughter's recent robbery would not affect his ability to be fair. He stated, It's not going to bother me and It won't affect me, no, sir. These unequivocal assurances of impartiality do not provide this Court with a basis to conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Banks' cause challenge. In other words, it does not appear that the juror's unequivocal responses provided any reasonable doubt as to whether the juror possessed an impartial state of mind. Cf. Kopsho, 959 So.2d at 172 (Mullinax's consistently equivocal responses raise reasonable doubt about his fitness as a juror.); Segura v. State, 921 So.2d 765, 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying cause challenge because, [d]espite repeated questioning and attempts to rehabilitate the juror, she never expressed a clear assurance that [her niece's sexual assault] would not influence her judgment). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of Banks' cause challenge.