 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Magee5/6/2005
tin, 558 So.2d at 658.
A defendant must object at the time of the ruling on the refusal to sustain a challenge for cause of a prospective juror. La.Code Crim. P. art. 800(A). Prejudice is presumed when a challenge for cause is erroneously denied by a trial court and the defendant has exhausted his peremptory challenges. To prove there has been reversible error warranting reversal of the conviction and sentence, defendant need only show (1) the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause; and (2) the use of all his peremptory challenges. State v. Robertson, 92-2660 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1278, 1280-1281. It is undisputed that defense counsel exhausted all of his peremptory challenges before the selection of the eleventh juror. Therefore, we need only determine the issue of whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's challenge for cause regarding prospective juror Toni Taylor.
Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 797 provides, in pertinent part, that:
The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that:
...
(2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence;
...
(4) The juror will not accept the law as given to him by the court.
The defendant contends that Toni Taylor's responses during voir dire revealed that she could not be an unbiased and focused juror. When questioned regarding her ability to concentrate, she admitted being distracted because she had been widowed six days prior to appearing for jury duty. She was also due in court several days later for a custody dispute.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, we find Toni Taylor's responses indicated a willingness to participate as a juror. She agreed that she would give it a "hundred percent" if selected. Moreover, we do not see where distraction falls within the purview of La.C.Cr.P. art. 797, specifically paragraphs (2) and (4). Challenge for cause under these paragraphs of the article requires that a juror cannot be impartial or will not accept the law. Minor or temporary distraction is not cause under Article 797, and since being so distracted cannot be equated with partiality or with refusing to accept the law, we will not read such a ground for a challenge for cause into the article.
The defendant further contends that later in the voir dire, Toni Taylor's responses were inconsistent on the issue of her attitudes relating to an alleged crime against a niece. In terms of her ability to serve as a juror, we find it irrelevant that Toni Taylor disagreed with a jury verdict that found a defendant not guilty for that alleged crime. The record reveals that Toni Taylor did not serve on that jury or have anything to do with the case. Moreover, Toni Taylor repeatedly stated that she could be a fair and impartial juror. She indicated it would not be difficult for her to vote not guilty in this case. She further declared that she would not feel another person would be getting away with rape if she voted not guilty.
When Toni Taylor was asked whether going through counseling with her niece would color her ability to be fair and impartial, she responded, "Yes." Defense counsel then asked, "So you just feel this case kind of hits a little too close to home that you really can't be a fair juror in this case?" She responded, "No, I feel like I could." The defendant characterizes the foregoing responses as
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.
|
|