Opinion ID: 1959682
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Veniremember Alley

Text: When the prosecutor asked Alley about whether she could impose the death penalty, she indicated that based on her religious views she was, not sure that she would be able to. During further questioning, Alley agreed that if she had to, she would not be able to choose the death penalty. She explained that she could not say that someone would not be able to talk her out of that, but she had never had that happen. However, she also indicated that she had already made up her mind regarding the death penalty. Defense counsel later asked Alley if she really meant that she could never impose the death penalty, and her answer was, Yes. When the trial court asked if there was an objection to the State's motion to strike Alley for cause, defense counsel said that there was, No objection. However, Johnson later raised this issue in his motion for new trial and in this appeal. Since Alley stated several times that she could not impose the death penalty, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the motion to strike her for cause. The trial court, aided by its assessment of the prospective jurors' demeanor, is entitled to resolve any ambiguity in their statements in favor of the State. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State's challenge for cause to prospective jurors Green, Leiter, Corcoran, and Alley.