Klahn v. State

• Decision Date: 13 August 2004
• Docket Number: No. 02-259,02-259
• Parties: JOHN S. KLAHN, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2004 WY 94

96 P.3d 472

JOHN S. KLAHN, Appellant (Defendant), v. THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 02-259

Supreme Court of Wyoming. APRIL TERM, A.D. 2004.

August 13, 2004

Representing Appellant: Kenneth M. Koski, State Public Defender; and Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee: Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; and Georgia L. Tibbetts, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ.

HILL, Chief Justice.

[¶1] John S. Klahn (Klahn) appeals a conviction on one count of sexual exploitation. Klahn contends that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his challenges for cause on three potential jurors. While we conclude the district court abused its discretion when it denied the challenge to one of the potential jurors, we affirm Klahn's conviction because there was no showing that the error was prejudicial.

ISSUE

[¶2] The parties agree that the sole issue raised in this appeal is:

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Mr. Klahn's challenges for cause?

FACTS

[¶3] In January 2001, Klahn's neighbor discovered three nude photographs of her fourteen-year-old daughter, GW, in Klahn's home. Klahn was charged with one count of exploitation of a child in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-4-303(b)(iv) (LexisNexis 2003)¹ and one count of taking indecent liberties with a minor in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 14-3-105(a) (LexisNexis 2003).²

[¶4] The sole issue raised in this case relates to jury selection. During voir dire, the district court and the parties examined in chambers members of the jury pool who each had indicated that they harbored potential prejudice that might affect their ability to be fair and impartial. The examinations of three potential jurors are relevant to this appeal. The first, Juror #139, indicated she had life experiences that she believed could affect her ability to sit on the jury panel:

THE COURT: Go ahead.

[JUROR #139]: Well, based on the information that I have concerning the case, I need to be real honest, you know. That was the whole point of being a juror was to be completely honest. I was molested when I was seven by an 18-year-old. And in those days that was not something you ever brought to trial or pressed charges. You just ignored it, you know.

Consequently, many, many years later my five-year-old daughter was molested by a 16-year-old boy. And that involved the legal system.

Can I go into this trial and be honest, you know, and give this guy a fair chance? Probably, based on all the facts. But I will tell you this: It's not going to take much. And if I even — I mean I wouldn't — it wouldn't take much evidence for me to say guilty because of my strong convictions.

I feel spared — basically, show no mercy. That's my attitude. That's not probably something you want to hear. And I'm sure I'm going to be the first one out the door. I'm going to be honest with you. I'm going to be very, very vocal.

THE COURT: Now, [Juror #139], the Court would instruct you if selected as a juror about the law of the case and about the standard you would have to apply. And you've already heard before anyone charged with a crime can be convicted a juror has to be convinced that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all elements of the crime.

Could you look at the evidence and make that type of analysis in your own mind if selected as a juror?

[JUROR #139]: Well, let's say hypothetically if I saw a picture of a minor, nude pictures taken by a gentleman; and this girl was a minor, like I said, it wouldn't take much. I wouldn't be able to hear —

THE COURT: I really don't want to ask you a hypothetical and I don't want you to relay to us necessarily what your verdict would be on some hypothetical or assumed set of facts, because you haven't heard anything yet.

[JUROR #139]: Right.

THE COURT: As [defense counsel] pointed out in the courtroom, there's no evidence against this man presented to you yet.

But my question to you is, if selected as a juror, would you promise to hear both sides of the case and only convict if you were convinced by the — beyond a reasonable doubt that each element of the crime had been presented to you? Could you promise to do that?

[JUROR #139]: I don't know. I don't know if I could do that. I'm already — I guess something like this is — I don't know. I can't explain it to you. Being a victim and having my daughter be a victim, I'm probably not going to be as fair as other jurors who are not emotionally involved; not so much with this case, but from previous experience. And I'll just be quite honest.

THE COURT: The attorneys are very glad to have all of that information, because all of us have prejudices. Everybody does. And not everybody is as honest at disclosing those, and that's something they want to know. But having a prejudice or life experience does not preclude you from being a good juror. In fact, sometimes the best jurors have life experience.

Without commenting on the level of evidence it will take to tip you over, if selected as a juror, you know, would you base the case only on the evidence presented in the courtroom?

[JUROR #139]: Uh-huh.

THE COURT: Another way of looking at this, I suppose, would be to say if your husband were the guy on the stand, could you judge it in that way? You see what we're getting at here?

[JUROR #139]: Yeah.

THE COURT: Counsel, do you have any questions for [Juror #139]?

[PROSECUTOR]: But you haven't really come to the conclusion that the Defendant here is guilty?

[JUROR #139]: Not without hearing the facts, no. I'm just saying I might not have to hear all of the facts. That's all I'm saying. Something that might be presented to me, whatever it might be, it would be easier for me.

[PROSECUTOR]: But you would be willing to listen to all of the evidence?

[JUROR #139]: Sure.

[PROSECUTOR]: Go ahead, [defense counsel].

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Are you telling us you would have a problem holding the State to their burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt when you say it wouldn't take much?

[JUROR #139]: I'm saying you (indicating) are going to present evidence and you're (indicating) going to come in here and counter evidence, whatever they have, and counter. That's obviously how it works. I'm saying it's not going to take much. That's all I'm saying. I'm not going to be in there arguing with myself and say, is he or is he not? I have the evidence in front of me. I don't know. It might be easier to sway me the other way because of previous experience. I'm being honest with you. I don't know how I'm going to be, whatever, happens. You guys asked the question, was there a chance anybody might be slightly biased; and I raised my hand. That's why I'm here.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you believe the prosecutor should have to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt?

[JUROR #139]: Well, the burden of proof is upon them, obviously; they have to prove the guilt. But your job is to try to counter that, too. So I — just depends on what the facts are. Just not going to take much.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Do you believe they ought to have to prove it?

[JUROR #139]: To prove that he is guilty?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Uh huh.

JUROR #139]: Yeah, I — can I also make a comment, to be honest?

[DEFENSE COUNEL]: Sure.

[JUROR #139]: I don't think that we would be at trial if they didn't feel that they had proof. That is just — I don't think it would go that far. There would be no case. So that kind of — you know, I am not the kind of — I'm sure I'm not making a lot of points here in this room, but — I'm not going to lie to you, either.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So you have a problem with the presumption of innocence, also?

[JUROR #139]: No, I do not. I believe that not everybody is guilty. I don't believe that. I mean we have to have it. Not everybody is going to be guilty. There are innocent people. I do believe that. It's just that this subject matter kind of hits a little close to home.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. We do appreciate your honesty about your feelings.

[¶5] The second potential juror, #124, knew some of the defense witnesses and questioned their credibility:

[THE PROSECUTOR]: [Juror #124], you just feel that you couldn't be at all fair and impartial here?

[JUROR #124]: To be quite honest today, no. I've got a splitting headache and I'm tired.

[PROSECUTOR]: Were you the one that works at night, too?

[JUROR #124]: I worked all night.

[PROSECUTOR]: So you don't get much rest, either?

[JUROR #124]: No, sir. But — I can't, in all honesty, say that I could be impartial. I really can't. And I know that's not fair. I know that. But I have to be honest.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Which defense witnesses do you know?

[JUROR #124]: [Names three people.]

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And you have knowledge about them you've gained outside of Court that is going to affect how you judge their credibility?

[JUROR #124]: Yes, sir.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: And you've — and you feel they are not particularly credible based on what you know about them outside of Court; is that what you're saying?

[JUROR #124]: Yes, sir.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Did you know [the victim], also?

[JUROR #124]: No, I don't know her.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Would it be hard for you to set aside your outside knowledge of these witnesses and judge their credibility with kind of a blank slate?

[JUROR #124]: I think so.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay. Thanks.

THE COURT: [Juror #124], bottom line is a good juror can know something about the case, can know witnesses. A good juror can have prejudices. That's okay, because we all do. The key is, would you promise to set aside those prejudices and judge the case based only on the facts presented from witnesses in the courtroom? Could you do that?

[JUROR #124]: Yeah.

THE COURT: Thanks for coming in and talking with us. I'll let you go ahead and be at ease here for a few minutes.

[JUROR

...