Opinion ID: 1860459
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Trial Court Refused to Excuse for Cause Death-Qualified Jurors

Text: In his third assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court refused to excuse for cause jurors who expressed an unwillingness to be impartial with regard to the death penalty. Specifically, defendant alleges that the trial court employed a vague and wholly arbitrary standard for death qualification whereby the judge used a shorthand phrase for excusing prospective jurors for whom his radar went up. Defendant contends that this methodology made jury selection highly subjective, and further, that it was difficult to calibrate the trial judge's so-called radar from day to day. We disagree, and find that the voir dire process did not violate defendant's rights to a fair and impartial jury as the jurors at issue did not display a reluctance to consider a life sentence. The proper standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his views on capital punishment is whether the juror's views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). [5] In the reverse- Witherspoon context, the basis of the exclusion is that a prospective juror will not consider a life sentence and ... will automatically vote for the death penalty under the factual circumstances of the case before him.... State v. Robertson, 92-2660, (La.1/14/94) 630 So.2d 1278, 1284. [6] Jurors who cannot consider both a life sentence and a death sentence are considered not impartial, as they cannot accept the law as given ... by the court. La.C.Cr.P. art. 797(2), and (4); State v. Maxie, 93-2158, (La.4/10/95), 653 So.2d 526, 534-35. In other words, if a prospective juror's views on the death penalty are such that they would prevent or substantially impair the performance of their duties in accordance with their instructions or their oaths, whether those views are for or against the death penalty, he or she should be excused for cause. State v. Taylor, 99-1311, p. 8 (La.1/17/01), 781 So.2d 1205, 1214. Applying these precepts to the responses of the 12 prospective jurors challenged for cause and about whom defendant now complains, the record supports the trial court's decision to deny the defense's challenges. The trial court conducted individual, sequestered voir dire of the prospective St. Landry jurors who would serve on this case in Rapides Parish. While a few of the less sophisticated jurors necessitated rehabilitation by the State to clarify their voir dire responses, none of the jurors exhibited a bias in favor of the death penalty or an unwillingness to follow the judge's instructions. In all respects, the court exercised great caution so as not to incur error which could result in mistrial and negate the time expended by these borrowed citizens.