State v. Christ

“A prospective juror’s statement of bias shall not of itself be sufficient to sustain the challenge, but the court must be satisfied, from all of the circumstances, that the juror cannot disregard such opinion and try the issue impartially.”

Defendant appeals judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. During voir dire, Defendant requested three jurors be excused for cause. The court inquired with the potential jurors before excusing them for cause. Defendant assigns error to the court’s denial of her motion for mistrial, alleging the court’s conduct interfered with her constitutional rights to an impartial jury and that the court’s questioning created an environment where jurors were discouraged from providing honest answers. “A prospective juror’s statement of bias shall not of itself be sufficient to sustain the challenge, but the court must be satisfied, from all of the circumstances, that the juror cannot disregard such opinion and try the issue impartially.” The Court looked at whether the trial court’s conduct was so prejudicial as to deny the defendant a fair trial. The Court reasoned that the trial court’s conduct did not have a prejudicial effect on the other jurors because the court did not admonish or berate them, issue sanctions to excused jurors, use profanity, or throw objects. The Court highlighted the only outward sign of frustration was to the prosecutor. The Court held that the trial court’s questioning of the three excused jurors did not have a chilling effect on the other jurors and the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion for mistrial. Affirmed.