State v. Gollas-Gomez

Defendants have a constitutional right to an impartial jury. Or Const, Art I, §11; US Cont, Amend VI. Defendants, consistent with the state and federal constitution, have a right to challenge a juror based on “actual bias.” ORCP 57 D(1)(g). Certain views, beliefs, or experiences does not equate to actual bias, but “’out of fact that those views are likely to impair the juror’s performance of his or her duties.’” State v. Barone, 328 Or 68, 78, 969 P2d 1013 (1998). The “totality of the potential juror’s voir dire testimony” must be considered in looking at whether a juror would be impaired to perform his or her duties because of his or her views. State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455, 474, 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001).

Defendant appealed his conviction of sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial to strike prospective Juror 11, for cause. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion to strike Juror 11 after Juror 11 admitted to being partial and emotional against the Defendant because of his affiliation to social work. In response, the State argued that Juror 11’s answers to questions in voir dire were unclear and the trial court’s discretion should be deferred to. Defendants have a constitutional right to an impartial jury. Or Const, Art I, §11; US Cont, Amend VI. Defendants, consistent with the state and federal constitution, have a right to challenge a juror based on “actual bias.” ORCP 57 D(1)(g). Certain views, beliefs, or experiences does not equate to actual bias, but “’out of fact that those views are likely to impair the juror’s performance of his or her duties.’” State v. Barone, 328 Or 68, 78, 969 P2d 1013 (1998). The “totality of the potential juror’s voir dire testimony” must be considered in looking at whether a juror would be impaired to perform his or her duties because of his or her views. State v. Lotches, 331 Or 455, 474, 17 P3d 1045 (2000), cert den, 534 US 833 (2001). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion because Juror’s 11 testimony was not unclear, Juror 11 stated that he could not view the evidence impartially and Juror 11’s testimony made it clear that his ability to perform his duties was in question. Reversed and remanded.