 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Owens4/10/2002
hat although they may have formed opinions prior to the start of this trial based upon what they saw in the news, all have indicated that they can set those opinions aside . . . .
The trial court also noted that some prospective jurors even questioned whether the news reporting was accurate, and indicated that they would be fair and impartial and try the case without prejudice to Owens.
[ .] This record discloses no abuse of discretion in the denial of Owens' request for ten additional peremptory challenges. Our conclusion is also supported by the fact that we find no error in the trial court's rulings on Owens' challenges for cause discussed in Issue 3.
[ .] 3. Whether the trial court should have excused certain prospective jurors for cause.
[ .] Owens makes two arguments. He first argues that a number of prospective jurors should have been excused for cause because of their exposure to pre-trial publicity. Owens contends these jurors had sufficient familiarity with the case to have developed opinions on the guilt of Owens, the crime alleged, or the escape. Owens also argues that fourteen prospective jurors should have been excused because of prior jury service.
[ .] (a) Pre-Trial Publicity and Juror Opinions
[ .] Jurors need not be ignorant of the facts and issues. State v. Martin, 493 NW2d 223, 227 (SD 1992). A defendant is only entitled to a fair and impartial jury, not a jury that has absolutely no prior knowledge of the facts of the case. Tapio, 459 NW2d 406 at 413. It has long been recognized that prospective jurors will have some knowledge of pending criminal cases by the pervasive influence of the communications media. State v. Garza, 1997 SD 54, , 563 NW2d 406, 410; State v. Boykin, 471 NW2d 165, 168 (SD 1991); State v. Weatherford, 416 NW2d 47, 51 (SD 1987).
[ .] Consequently, whether jurors are acquainted with the case is "essentially irrelevant." State v. Banks, 387 NW2d 19, 21 (SD 1986). The relevant questions are (1) whether a prospective juror with pre-trial knowledge has an "unqualified opinion or belief as to the merits of the case," (SDCL 23A-20-13.1(11)), and (2) whether the prospective juror's opinions are so fixed that they cannot impartially judge the guilt of the defendant, (SDCL 23A-22-13.1(21)), Banks, 387 NW2d at 21. Stated another way, a juror must be able to set aside preconceptions and judge the case on the facts presented at trial under the instructions given by the trial court. This is all that is required. See Garza, 1997 SD 54 at , 563 NW2d at 409; State v. Darby, 1996 SD 127, , 556 NW2d 311, 322; State v. Hansen, 407 NW2d 217, 220 (SD 1987).
[ .] We find that no prospective juror, when his or her answers are considered in their entirety, held unqualified opinions or evinced an inability to impartially perform their duties in accordance with the court's instructions and the jurors' oath. Owens, however, argues that the rehabilitation testimony of these jurors should not overcome their initial answers to the written questionnaires and direct questioning. We disagree.
[ .] SDCL 23A-20-16 provides that challenges to prospective jurors "shall be tried by the court." SDCL 23A-20-17 provides that the juror "may be examined as a witness to prove or disprove the challenge . . . ." Id. After hearing evidence, the court must allow or disallow the challenge. SDCL 23A-20-18. These statutes contemplate that the trial court should consider all relevant evidence regarding the challenge, whether the evidence was elicited on direct or cross-examination of the prospective juror.
[ .] Our cases confirm that conclusion. The determination of a juror's qualifications m
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|