 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. King6/24/2004
(For Official Publication)
Gordon R. King appeals his conviction of attempted forcible sexual abuse of a child in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404 (1999). Because we hold that the trial court failed to fully satisfy its responsibility to detect, probe, and eliminate juror bias during the jury selection process, we reverse King's conviction and remand for a new trial.
BACKGROUND
King was charged with sexual abuse of a child, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1 (1999). After a preliminary hearing, King was bound over for trial. At trial, once the prospective jurors were sworn, the trial court explained that it would be asking them questions in order "to get a fair and impartial jury." During voir dire, the trial court read the Information to the prospective jurors, "to see if [the jurors] have any familiarity with the case or any strong feelings about the case."
After reading the Information, the court asked whether any of the prospective jurors had "formed an opinion about this case." Prospective Juror A raised her hand, indicating that she had formed an opinion, and the court then asked if there was "anyone who because of the nature of the case believes they would be unable to be fair and impartial." When prospective Jurors A, B, C, D and E all raised their hands, the court explained that although " he nature of the alleged crime is one that ... none of us look upon in favor[,] ... the defendant in this case is not convicted[ and t]he State has the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." The court then asked if any of the prospective jurors were "of the opinion that, because of the mere nature of the case, [they] couldn't listen and be fair," to which Juror A again raised her hand.
Juror A indicated that she had formed an opinion and would be unable to be impartial and explained that she was previously "a protective services intake worker for Division of Family Services." When asked by the court whether she had found that sexual abuse cases were sometimes founded and sometimes unfounded, she answered in the negative, much to the surprise of the court. The court was quick to explain to the other potential jurors that, in fact, " ome of those cases are founded, some are unfounded." Juror A was not questioned further in the presence of the other prospective jurors but later told the judge in private that "children don't lie about sexual abuse."
The court then followed up with additional questions to prospective Jurors B, C, D, and E, "who previously indicated that they might have some difficulty with the nature of the case[ and] being fair," to determine if they could be "fair and impartial." In the course of questioning them, it became apparent that the affirmative responses of Jurors C and D were prompted by a previous personal or family situation involving sexual abuse. The court then told all of the prospective jurors that it would speak in private to those who had "some personal matters that they want to discuss." The court identified Jurors A, C, and D as three such prospective jurors, and asked whether "there anyone else who either has been the victim of abuse or has had a family member or a close personal friend who has been the victim of abuse." In response to this question, "a number of other hands" were raised, and prospective Jurors F, G, H, I, J, and K were identified for the record. Then the court asked if any of those six were "of the opinion that [their experience or history regarding abuse] would interfere with [their] ability to be fair and impartial." Prospective Juror G raised her hand, and she was subsequently excused for cause.
Thus, a total of eleven
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|