 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Sexton11/2/1989
The appellant, Claude Hibert Sexton, was found guilty by a jury of driving while intoxicated while his license was suspended, revoked or refused. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with 41 days of pre-sentence incarceration credit and ordered to pay $100 as a felony penalty assessment.
On appeal, appellant raises two issues:
(1) Did the trial court err by refusing to strike a juror for cause?
(2) Was appellant improperly sentenced as a dangerous offender?
FACTS
The facts taken in a light most favorable to sustaining the verdict are as follows. On April 8, 1988, two cars stopped at an intersection for a red light. Appellant drove a third car into the back of the second car which in turn hit the first car. All three cars were damaged and both of the other drivers were injured.
The parties stipulated at trial that appellant was driving while his license was revoked, refused or suspended. Appellant denied that he was intoxicated at the time of the accident.
1. REFUSAL TO STRIKE A JUROR FOR CAUSE
During voir dire, several potential jurors expressed problems regarding serving on this case. One potential juror in particular, a Mrs. Ostrander, gave troubling responses to questions posed by counsel:
DEFENSE COUNSEL: For those of you who indicated some personal experience with DWI, particularly Mr. Gonzalez and Mrs. Ostrander, too, whom Ms. Scott was speaking with just a minute ago -- would you have any personal difficulty reaching a verdict of acquittal in this case which involves a DWI, if the evidence were not sufficient to get past a reasonable doubt in your own minds.
MR. GONZALEZ: Possibly, I'm not sure.
MRS. OSTRANDER: Yes.
Mrs. Ostrander also spoke about her feelings and opinions regarding people who drink:
MRS. OSTRANDER: I don't drink. I may have an occasional wine cooler. I do have a strong opinion. Cocktails, I don't know. I think I'm pretty biased.
DEFENSE COUNSEL: Against drinking?
MRS. OSTRANDER: Yes, I am.
The trial judge posed no further questions about Mrs. Ostrander's ability to put aside her feelings and deliberate impartially. At the conclusion of voir dire, defense counsel moved to strike her for cause. The trial judge refused to dismiss her. He stated that he thought she had indicated she would follow the law and decide the case on the evidence and instructions. Mrs. Ostrander, in fact, never made such statements. Defense counsel used a peremptory challenge to strike Mrs. Ostrander. She stated on the record that had the trial judge struck this juror for cause, she would have used her peremptory challenge to strike another juror who remained on the jury. Appellant now claims that the trial judge erred by failing to remove Mrs. Ostrander for cause.
In Arizona, a challenge to a potential juror for cause is within the discretion of the trial court. Reversal is only required where there is a clear showing that the trial judge abused discretion. State v. Rose, 121 Ariz. 131, 139, 589 P.2d 5, 13 (1978). When a potential juror's answers demonstrate serious misgivings
about the ability to be fair and impartial, that juror should be struck for cause. State v. Rodriguez, 131 Ariz. 400, 641 P.2d 888 (App.1982). If a potential juror ultimately assures the trial judge that she can be fair, it is not error to refuse to strike her. State v. Reasoner, 154 Ariz. 377, 742 P.2d 1363 (A
Page 1 2 Arizona DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|