Ex parte Beam
| Decision Date | 12 June 1987 |
| Citation | 512 So.2d 723 |
| Parties | Ex parte Joey Dale BEAM (Re Joey Dale Beam v. State of Alabama). 86-287. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
F. David Lowery and Benjamin H. Richey, Russellville, for petitioner.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Gerrilyn V. Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Pursuant to Rule 39(k), A.R.App.P., we granted the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals in this "no opinion" case, 502 So.2d 396, to review a single issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's "challenge for cause" of a prospective juror.
Because the State agrees with the petitioner's Rule 39(k) statement of the facts, we quote directly from that statement:
The State urges our affirmance on the authority of two propositions set forth in Clark v. State, 443 So.2d 1287 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983): 1) "A trial court's ruling on challenge for cause based on bias is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly shown to be an abuse of discretion"; and 2) "a juror who brings his thoughts out into the open in response to voir dire questions may be the one who later 'bends over backwards to be fair.' "
Although we agree with the State's first proposition, the test for determining the propriety of the trial court's ruling in such cases must be measured against the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial. No right of an accused felon is more basic than the right to "strike" a petit jury from a panel of fair-minded, impartial prospective jurors.
The State's proposed application of Clark's "honesty of the juror" test is a misreading of Clark. While forthrightness and candor on the part of a juror are admirable, even applaudable character traits, when questioned about his or her ability to give the case impartial, unbiased consideration, it is the substance of the juror's answers, honestly given,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Petersen v. State
-
Lindsay v. State
...591 So.2d 3 (Ala. 1991) ; Knop v. McCain, 561 So.2d 229 (Ala. 1989) ; Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So.2d 1118 (Ala. 1988) ; Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723 (Ala. 1987) ; Uptain v. State, 534 So.2d 686, 688 (Ala.Crim.App. 1988) (quoting Swain and citing Beam and Rutledge ); Mason v. State, 536 So.2d ......
-
Arthur v. State
... ... Page 1043 ... identity exception to the general exclusionary rule. Ex parte Arthur, 472 So.2d 665 (Ala.1985). The appellant was again convicted of capital murder and was sentenced to death by electrocution. However, this ... McCain, 561 So.2d 229, 233 (Ala.1989) ]; Ex parte Beam, 512 So.2d 723, 724 (Ala.1987). Thus, when the aggregate effect of her response tends to verify the existence of "deep-seated impressions" ... ...
-
Doster v. State Of Ala.
...Knop, 561 So. 2d at 232. We must consider the entire voir dire examination of the juror 'in full context and as a whole.' Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723, 724 (Ala. 1987); Ex parte Rutledge, 523 So. 2d at 1120." 827 So. 2d at 197-98. "Even though a prospective juror may initially admit to a p......
-
The Blindfold for Lady Justice Does Not Go on Until After Jury Selection
...of the opinion and the context of replies to questions as a whole must govern the issue of granting a challenge for cause. Ex parte Beam, 512 So. 2d 723 (Ala. 1987). The challenge is to avoid possible prejudice Personal acquaintance with a party is not an absolute challenge for cause. Grand......