 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Lopez3/11/2004
April 22, 2004 - Opinion Modified, and As Modified, Petition for Rehearing DENIED.
Defendant, Robert Lopez, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on jury verdicts finding him guilty of reckless vehicular homicide, driving under the influence , and driving with excessive alcohol content. We affirm.
A car occupied by the victim and driven by the victim's daughter turned left in front of defendant's vehicle. Defendant's vehicle collided with the other car, and the victim, who was not using a seatbelt, was thrown from it. The victim died at the scene. Blood alcohol tests showed that defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and eyewitnesses testified that defendant was speeding. Defendant was convicted of the above charges, and this appeal followed.
I.
Defendant first contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the trial court denied his challenge of a prospective juror for cause based on her statement that she would have difficulty following the court's instructions concerning the proximate cause element of the vehicular homicide charge. We disagree.
Following a series of questions concerning wholly unrelated hypothetical situations, the prospective juror expressed doubts about following an instruction on proximate cause. Defense counsel challenged this prospective juror for cause, and the prosecutor objected, arguing that the prospective juror's answers were based on the hypothetical situations.
The trial court denied the challenge, stating, "I'm not certain that she was thinking anything about the case. And I think the responses were entirely based on the hypotheticals. And that's what she said. I don't think a challenge for cause is made out."
We review a trial court's ruling on a challenge for cause for abuse of discretion. We must consider the entire voir dire of the prospective juror. Carrillo v. People, 974 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1999).
A trial court must sustain a challenge for cause if the prospective juror has a state of mind evincing animosity or bias toward the defendant or the prosecution, § 16-10-103(l)(j), C.R.S. 2003, but the court is not required to dismiss a prospective juror simply because he or she has indicated a possible bias. If the court is satisfied that the prospective juror will base the decision on the evidence and will follow the court's instructions, the juror should not be disqualified. The trial court is accorded great deference in deciding a challenge for cause because such decisions turn on an assessment of the prospective juror's credibility, demeanor, and sincerity in explaining his or her state of mind. People v. Strean, 74 P.3d 387 (Colo. App. 2002).
A prospective juror should be excused if it is doubtful that he or she will be governed by the instructions of the court on the law applicable to the case. Morgan v. People, 624 P.2d 1331 (Colo. 1981). However, if the juror's answers are inconsistent or self-contradictory, only the trial court can assess the potential juror's state of mind by personal observation. Carrillo v. People, supra.
Here, in an earlier part of the voir dire examination, this prospective juror clearly indicated that she could be a fair and impartial juror, grant defendant the presumption of innocence, and hold the prosecution to its burden of proof. This was a clear statement of her ability to be a fair and impartial juror and of her willingness to follow the basic rules of law.
After considering the entire voir dire of this prospective juror, including the confusion caused by the unrelated hypothetical questions, and giving deference to the trial court's assessment of the prospective juror's credibi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|