 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Walls11/3/1995
ims that the trial court's summary denial of his motion resulted in defense counsel refraining from questioning these jurors once the State tendered them for cause. A prospective juror may be excluded because of his views on capital punishment when those views would "prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath." Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 424, 83 L. Ed. 2d 841, 851-52, 105 S. Ct. 844 (1985).
Prospective juror Clayton's voir dire transpired, in part, as follows:
MR. BEARD: Are you saying that your feelings would substantially impair your performance of your duties as a juror in connection with the death penalty if it got to recommending the death penalty?
MS. CLAYTON: Yes.
THE COURT: I said if you were selected to sit on this case, are you telling us that you would be unable to follow the law of this State because of your feelings about the death penalty?
MS. CLAYTON: Yes.
Prospective juror Burgess' voir dire included the following:
MR. BEARD: If you were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the death penalty ought to be imposed, could you yourself recommend the death penalty knowing that the court would follow your recommendation and impose the death penalty?
MS. BURGESS: I'm not really sure. I honestly don't think that I could do that.
MR. BEARD: So regardless, based on your own personal feelings, regardless of what the circumstances would be . . . you yourself would not be able to recommend the death penalty under any circumstances?
MS. BURGESS: No, sir. I don't believe I could.
Prospective juror Owens' voir dire revealed the following:
MR. BEARD: Do I understand you correctly that you would not be able to recommend the death penalty based on your own personal feelings . . . ?
MS. OWENS: Yes.
MR. BEARD: Are there any circumstances because of your own personal feelings against the death penalty knowing that the court will follow your recommendation?
MS. OWENS: (Nodded head from side to side.)
MR. BEARD: Can you give me a yes or no answer?
MS. OWENS: No.
Finally, a portion of prospective juror Odom's voir dire proceeded in this manner:
MR. BEARD: Again, you yourself could not recommend the death penalty based on your own personal feelings, is that right?
MS. ODOM: Yes. As far as I am concerned I could not recommend the death penalty. No.
We conclude that prospective jurors Clayton, Owens and Odom were ultimately unequivocal in their responses that they could not vote to impose the death penalty. As such, these prospective jurors could not follow the law and be fair and impartial jurors. Their excusal for cause was not error. As for prospective juror Burgess, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that "many veniremen simply cannot be asked enough questions to reach the point where their bias has been made 'unmistakably clear.'" Witt, 469 U.S. at 424-25, 83 L. Ed. 2d at 852. Based on the superior vantage point of the trial court, its decision as to whether a juror's views would substantially impair the performance of his duties is to be afforded deference. State v. Brogden, 334 N.C. 39, 430 S.E.2d 905 (1993). In light of prospective juror Burgess' voir dire responses that she did not believe she could vote to impose the death penalty, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in determining her views would substantially impair the performance of her duties as a juror.
Further, defendant appears to argue
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|