Opinion ID: 1669169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Advice as to Sentence

Text: After advising the jury about the potentiality of a sentence of death, the trial judge asked that any venireperson who, with that knowledge, could not in good conscience take the oath to decide the case on the law and the facts to the exclusion of any other consideration, please stand now so that he might visit with such venireperson individually. No venireperson stood. Hankins' claim that the trial judge's comments were improvident because they produced a more convictionprone jury than would otherwise be the case has been rejected by both the U.S. Supreme Court and this court. It is entirely permissible to exclude from jury service those whose views on capital punishment are such as to prevent or substantially impair their ability to impartially apply the law to the evidence. Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 174, 106 S.Ct. 1758, 1765, 90 L.Ed.2d 137 (1986); State v. Bird Head, 225 Neb. 822, 408 N.W.2d 309 (1987); State v. Burchett, 224 Neb. 444, 399 N.W.2d 258 (1986) (quoting Lockhart v. McCree No useful purpose would be served by restating the analyses contained in the foregoing cases. We are constrained, however, to point out that, here, none of the venirepersons responded to the trial judge's comments, and apparently none of them were excluded as a result of the information the venire was given.