Opinion ID: 1133126
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Excluding Veniremen Opposed to Capital Punishment

Text: [1] Thirty-five prospective jurors were excused for cause on the basis of their attitude toward the death penalty. [1] Under Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. 510, it was error to exclude one or more of them. For example, the court asked if any of the veniremen have a conscientious objection or opinion as to the imposition of the death penalty in a proper case. Several prospective jurors raised their hands, and one such juror apparently was a Mr. McFarland. The following discussion ensued: THE COURT: ... Mr. McFarland, you feel that even though this was a proper case for the imposition of the death penalty that you could not and would not vote for a verdict imposing the death penalty because of your conscientious objection or opinion? JUROR McFARLAND: I am opposed to the death penalty, yes. MR. FITTS [the prosecutor]: I didn't hear that. THE COURT: He said, `I am opposed to the death penalty'; is that correct, Mr. McFarland? JUROR McFARLAND: Yes, sir. The court then excused the venireman for cause. Venireman McFarland's response I am opposed to the death penalty, yes manifestly is ambiguous. The response can reasonably be interpreted as stating in effect that if the question was whether he was opposed to the death penalty the answer is yes. It appears from the trial court's subsequent remark heretofore quoted that the court understood the response as merely expressing opposition to the death penalty, but the court did not continue with the voir dire to clarify the venireman's attitude and instead excused him for cause. [2] The record thus shows that venireman McFarland did not make it unmistakably clear that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment without regard to any evidence that might be developed at the trial ( Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. 510, 523. fn. 22 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 794]). Witherspoon noted (at p. 516, fn. 9 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 781]) that Unless a venireman states unambiguously that he would automatically vote against the imposition of capital punishment no matter what the trial might reveal, it simply cannot be assumed that that is his position. (Italics added.) [2] [A] sentence of death cannot be carried out if the jury that imposed or recommended it was chosen by excluding veniremen for cause simply because they voiced general objections to the death penalty or expressed conscientious or religious scruples against its infliction. ( Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra, 391 U.S. 510, 522 [20 L.Ed.2d 776, 784].)