Opinion ID: 2747138
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Prospective juror Thurston

Text: During defense questioning, defense counsel asked prospective juror Thurston about comments that he made in his juror questionnaire. The following exchange occurred: “Q. I’m going to—you know, you did this questionnaire for us and we thank you for it. “A. Un-huh. “Q. It gives us a lot of things to talk about. But I’m going to jump through [to] the portion about the death penalty because you made some fairly strong comments there. “A. Yes. “Q. [Defendant] is on trial for her life— “A. I understand. “Q. —and she is entitled to have objective, fair jurors, as the State is— “A. Un-huh. “Q. —and they’re going to have to go in the jury room now that she’s pled guilty and not decide she’s guilty or not, just decide if she’s going to live or not. “A. Exactly. “Q. Can you go to that jury room and keep an open mind on those three possible [sentencing] verdicts, the life with a chance of parole after 30 [years], life with no chance of ever being paroled, or the death penalty? “A. No, I cannot. “Q. And I think I read a little bit, but can you tell me how you feel? 476 State v. McAnulty “A. Well, it goes beyond religion and spiritual things. Ever since I can remember, um, I hate to add fuel to the flames, but I grew up in Oakland, California, and unfortunately, some aspects of what you hear are true. Not to the degree that you hear—things are blown way out of proportion but, of course, I’ve had friends that died. I’ve lived in a neighborhood where you hear gunshots at night. Even at the youngest point, there was something inside me that said I do what I can for my country, but I can’t be a soldier because there’s something in me that cannot take a life.    I would lose a part of myself. And if any way, shape, or form possible that I would not have to do that, I would not. I have a hard time—I do understand the concept. I do understand the whole capital punishment situation. However, people who are on trial for murders have their reasons for murdering and as a general rule, no matter what the reasoning, the State or the federal government always says, ‘You cannot do this. You are not allowed to do this.’ But then again, we have our reasons and we say it’s okay to do it when it comes to capital punishment. That, to me, just doesn’t make sense.” As defense counsel began asking another question, the trial court interrupted, stating, “I think Mr. Thurston has articulated how he feels about these issues, and I’m not sure how much more inquiry is going to be of value in this process.” The court then excused Thurston sua sponte. Defendant did not object or request to ask any additional questions of Thurston. Although Thurston expressed a strong view against imposing the death penalty, defendant contends that the trial court erred in cutting off defense counsel’s inquiry and sua sponte excusing him. Defendant cites Morgan v. Illinois, 504 US 719, 736-39, 112 S Ct 2222, 119 L Ed 2d 492 (1992), in support of her position that she was entitled to rehabilitate Thurston. However, Morgan is inapposite. In Morgan, the trial court conducted voir dire and denied the defendant’s specific request to ask prospective jurors about their ability to give fair consideration to mitigation evidence. Here, defendant did not object or specifically request to ask additional questions. Defendant does not explain how the trial court’s decision to cut off defense counsel’s inquiry of Thurston prejudiced her when she did not object or request to ask further Cite as 356 Or 432 (2014) 477 questions of him. Further, nothing in the record suggests that defendant could have rehabilitated Thurston. To the contrary, Thurston stated that his inability to impose the death penalty “goes beyond religion and spiritual things” to his personal experience of having friends that died when he was young. He stated that, “[e]ven at the youngest point, there was something inside me that said I do what I can for my country, but I can’t be a soldier because there’s something in me that cannot take a life.    I would lose a part of myself. And if any way, shape, or form possible that I would not have to do that, I would not.” On this record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in excusing Thurston sua sponte when defendant did not object to the excusal or request to ask further questions. See also Nefstad, 309 Or at 536-38 (excusal affirmed when juror stated that he could not vote for the death penalty).