 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Magee5/6/2005
uilt or innocence in stating, "But whether I know her or not has nothing to do with whether he is guilty or innocent to me. I don't feel that she's, you know, it's what comes before the court."
At the end of the exchange among the trial court, counsel, and Mrs. Magee, defense counsel moved to excuse Mrs. Magee. The trial court recessed to research the issue. Relying on several cases dealing with a similar issue, the trial court stated in pertinent part:
The responses by the juror in this case make it clear to the Court that she would not be disqualified under these terms and this--she testified or she advised the Court and the attorneys that the relationship wasn't of such a nature that she could not be fair and impartial and I believe her. I think she is a very sincere person. There is no--specifically asked if she was a friend, she said no, just a neighbor. And specifically said she could be fair and impartial; therefore, the motion to remove is denied.
Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to remove Mrs. Magee. The circumstances do not indicate that Mrs. Magee could not be fair and impartial. The concerns of bias, prejudice, or less than unequivocal responses raised based upon the voir dire exchange are not so strong as to demonstrate an abuse of the trial court's exercise of its broad discretion in this area. See State v. McIntyre, 381 So .2d at 410; see also State v. Kang, 02-2812, p. 8 (La.10/21/03), 859 So.2d 649, 655.
This assignment of error is without merit.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
In his second assignment of error, the defendant avers the trial court erred in failing to excuse Toni Taylor for cause during jury selection. Specifically, the defendant contends that Toni Taylor should have been excused because she would not be able to concentrate, having recently been widowed, and because her responses were inconsistent. When defense counsel challenged Toni Taylor for cause, the trial court denied the challenge. Defense counsel objected to the court's ruling. Defense counsel used his twelfth peremptory challenge to strike Toni Taylor from the panel. Thus, Toni Taylor never served on the jury.
An accused in a criminal case is constitutionally entitled to a full and complete voir dire examination and to the exercise of peremptory challenges. La. Const. art. I, § 17(A). The purpose of voir dire examination is to determine prospective jurors' qualifications by testing their competency and impartiality and discovering bases for the intelligent exercise of cause and peremptory challenges. State v. Burton, 464 So.2d 421, 425 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 468 So.2d 570 (La.1985). A challenge for cause should be granted, even when a prospective juror declares his ability to remain impartial, if the juror's responses as a whole reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or inability to render judgment according to law may be reasonably implied. State v. Martin, 558 So.2d 654, 658 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 564 So.2d 318 (La.1990). But a refusal by the trial court to excuse a prospective juror on the ground that he is not impartial is not an abuse of discretion where, after further inquiry or instruction, he has demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and the evidence. State v. Copeland, 530 So.2d 526, 534 (La.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1091, 109 S.Ct. 1558, 103 L.Ed.2d 860 (1989). A trial court is accorded great discretion in determining whether to seat or reject a juror for cause, and such rulings will not be disturbed unless a review of the voir dire as a whole indicates an abuse of that discretion. State v. Mar
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Louisiana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|