 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Miller6/1/2000
A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See Wis. Stat. § 808.10 and Rule 809.62.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Vernon County: MICHAEL J. ROSBOROUGH, Judge.
Affirmed.
. Steven Miller appeals from a judgment convicting him of driving while intoxicated. He argues that the trial court's refusal to strike a prospective juror for cause when it became known that the prosecutor had represented the juror in the past and continued to prepare her family's income tax returns each year warrants reversal of his conviction. As we discuss below, whether to excuse a prospective juror for cause is a highly discretionary act, and we pay great deference to the circuit court's discretionary rulings. We will reverse only where we can say that no judge, acting reasonably under the facts and applicable law, could reach the same decision. We cannot say that here and we therefore affirm the judgment.
. During voir dire, the court asked all prospective jurors whether any of them knew or had personal or professional contact with (among other people) the assistant district attorney prosecuting the case, Philip Stittleburg. One of the jurors, a Ms. Haugrud, replied: "Yes, he's my attorney ...." She also stated that she knew Stittleburg through her job at a local bank. In her answers to several follow-up questions by the court, Haugrud stated that Stittleburg prepared her family's annual income tax returns, and that he had also represented them several years earlier in a case involving property damage to her sheep. She noted, however, that it had been three or four years since she or her family had had any business with him (other than tax preparation). Finally, in response to the court's final question, Haugrud stated that she would be able to decide Miller's case on the evidence and without regard to the fact of her acquaintance with Stittleburg or that he prepared her family's tax return.
. Miller's counsel requested that Haugrud be removed for cause on grounds of bias. The court denied the request, citing her answers during voir dire and her statement that she could act impartially in the case, and concluding that when a potential juror indicates that their acquaintance with a particular attorney will not be an influence on his or her role as a juror, the court "ought to be able to take that person at that person's word." Counsel then used a peremptory strike to remove Haugrud from the panel.
. As indicated, the jury found Miller guilty of operating while intoxicated. His sole argument on appeal is that his conviction should be reversed because of the court's refusal to strike Haugrud for cause. He claims that Haugrud was plainly biased.
. State v. Faucher, 227 Wis. 2d 700, 717, 596 N.W.2d 770 (1999), outlines three types of potential juror bias. The first, "statutory bias," refers to those relationships declared by the legislature to disqualify the juror-either being related "by blood or marriage to any party or to any attorney appearing in the case" or having a "financial interest in the case." See id. at 717; see also Wis. Stat. § 805.08(1) (1997-98). Such a juror is deemed to be biased and may not serve on a jury regardless of his or her ability to be impartial. See id. A second category, "subjective bias," is bias that is revealed through the words and demeanor of the prospective juror. It refers to the prospective juror's state of mind. See id. There is no real claim in this case that Haugrud was either statutorily or subjectively biased. Finally, a prospective juror is "objective bias " when, in light of all the circumstances surrounding the voir dire and
Page 1 2 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|