Court Opinion

ID: 9845426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:21:38.599326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:07.243640
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent to Division 2 of the opinion, and would affirm the jury’s verdict imposing the death penalty on Lewis.
*108In the voir dire examination the state asked potential jurors a hypothetical question: "if the evidence in this case should develop that the defendant was 16 years of age at the time of the crime, would this one factor . . . cause you to be unable to fairly and fully weigh the death penalty as one of the possible punishments?” Six veniremen stated that they would refuse to consider the death penalty as punishment for a 16-year-old. These individuals were stricken for cause. The majority reverse Lewis’ death sentence because under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 510 (88 SC 1770, 20 LE2d 776) (1968), "veniremen . . . cannot be excluded for cause simply because they indicate that there are some kinds of cases in which they would refuse to recommend capital punishment.” 391 U. S. 522, fn. 21.
I would follow the second portion of the above quoted footnote which states: "[t]he most that can be demanded of a venireman in this regard is that he be willing to consider all of the penalties provided by state law, and that he not be irrevocably committed, before the trial has begun, to vote against the penalty of death regardless of the facts and circumstances that might emerge in the course of the proceedings.” 391 U. S. 522, fn. 21. Lewis’ age was unavoidably an element in this case. Clearly, the veniremen excluded here could not abide their oaths as jurors and consider the full range of penalties which our law prescribes for the murder of a policeman. Thus, I believe they were properly stricken, and that the death sentence should not be reversed. I do not believe, as the majority states, that the stricken veniremen "would have given the utmost consideration to the mitigating factor of the age of the appellant.” Rather, these veniremen would have given age absolutely controlling weight and completely refused to even consider the possibility of sentencing Lewis to death. And based on their own testimony they would have done so, not when age was presented as a mitigating factor, but as soon as they learned of Lewis’ age.
I also adhere to the principles enunciated in Justice Black’s dissent in Witherspoon. He says that society has as much right to an impartial jury as do criminal defendants. And that he would "never carry [the notion that the jury be as fully representative of the *109community as possible] so far as to require that those biased against one of the critical issues in a trial should be represented on a jury.” 391 U. S. at 535-536.1, like Justice Black, would not force the state "to accept jurors who are bound to be biased.” 391 U. S. 540.
Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Justice Marshall joins in this dissent.