People v. Blackmer
| Decision Date | 30 June 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 92CA1663,92CA1663 |
| Citation | 888 P.2d 343 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond BLACKMER, III, Defendant-Appellant. . IV |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Katherine M. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Cherner and Blackman, Barbara S. Blackman, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Opinion by Judge PLANK.
Defendant, Raymond Blackmer, III, appeals the judgment of conviction entered on a jury verdict finding him guilty of felony murder and attempted first degree sexual assault. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion in denying his challenge for cause to three prospective jurors. We agree that the trial court should have granted the defendant's challenge for cause as to one juror.
A trial court must sustain a challenge for cause when the juror's state of mind evinces enmity or bias toward the defendant. Section 16-10-103(1)(j), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A). Additionally, under § 16-10-103(1)(j), prospective jurors should be excused if "it appears doubtful" that they will be governed by the instructions of the court as to the law of the case. Morgan v. People, 624 P.2d 1331 (Colo.1981).
Here, during voir dire, the following colloquy occurred with defense counsel, the juror, and the court:
Attorney: The fact that someone has died, okay, and sexual assault is somehow involved, what kind of feelings does that raise in you right now?
[Prospective Juror]: Well, I think I'd have to listen to what would go on with the witnesses and everything, I think.
Attorney: But how do you feel about that personally?
[Prospective Juror]: It's kind of hard, because one time I wanted revenge and another time I'd think, well, they're entitled to a--to hear their side of the story and stuff.
Attorney: Okay. Understanding that there may not be two sides to the story here, what feelings would that cause you to have at this point in time?
[Prospective Juror]: Well, I think he's entitled to be heard.
Attorney: Everyone is entitled to a fair trial?
[Prospective Juror]: Yes, uh-huh.
Attorney: That does not mean that there's actually an entitlement to be heard. That's a decision that a person has to make, but the law holds a person innocent unless or until proven guilty.
[Prospective Juror]: Uh-huh.
Attorney: Okay. What that also means is whoever is being charged doesn't ever have to take the stand if they don't want to, okay? Understanding that you may not hear both sides of the story, so to speak, what kind of feelings does that cause you to have?
[Prospective Juror]: Well, I'd have to hear him or hear the witnesses for him and against him, both.
Attorney: Okay. So you would absolutely have to hear from Mr. Blackmer in this case before you could arrive at a fair verdict; is that right?
[Prospective Juror]: Yes.
Attorney: And without that, would you have serious doubts as to whether you could be a fair juror for him? Is that right?
[Prospective Juror]: Uh-huh.
Attorney: Is that a yes? I'm sorry.
[Prospective Juror]: Yes.
Attorney: I'm sorry. We have to talk out loud for the court reporter. So without hearing from him, you could not be fair to him?
[Prospective Juror]: More or less, yes.
Attorney: Thank you for your honesty. Judge, I have no further questions.
The Court: Okay. [Prospective Juror], I need to clarify this. I guess I'm not really sure that I understand your last couple of responses. Are you describing that you need to hear Mr. Blackmer testify or witnesses testify in favor of his case?
[Prospective Juror]: Yes. I'd like to hear both sides. I think I'd have to hear both sides.
The Court: Well, but--I guess I'm trying to clarify this. Are you saying--of course there is a side for the state and a side for the defense. Are you saying that the side of the defense can be presented through witnesses other than himself, or that you need specifically to hear the defendant, Mr. Blackmer?
[Prospective Juror]: I think I'd have to hear him, yes.
The juror was not questioned further by the parties or the court. The defendant challenged the juror for cause. The prosecution responded that it was in the court's discretion to grant or deny the challenge. The court denied the request, and the defendant subsequently exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse the juror. Defendant exercised all of his allotted peremptory challenges.
We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Clemens
...challenge for cause when the juror, who previously indicated a need to hear from the defendant, was rehabilitated); People v. Blackmer, 888 P.2d 343, 344–45 (Colo.App.1994) (holding that when jurors communicate "difficulty applying the principles of law unless [they] hear[ ] the defendant t......
-
Morrison v. People, No. 99SC306.
...made on the grounds that Hunt would have to hear "both sides" before she could render a verdict. Morrison argues that People v. Blackmer, 888 P.2d 343 (Colo.App.1994) and Morgan compel reversal of the trial court's decision. We In Blackmer, 888 P.2d at 344, the prospective juror stated dire......
-
People v. Hancock
...could overcome the clear implications of her responses and significant concerns over her inability to be fair"); People v. Blackmer, 888 P.2d 343, 344-45 (Colo.App. 1994) (error to deny challenge for cause where juror indicated she would have difficulty applying principles of law unless she......
-
People v. Vecchiarelli-McLaughlin, 98SC412.
...maintained throughout voir dire that he would "find it hard" to remain unbiased if the defendant did not testify), and People v. Blackmer, 888 P.2d 343 (Colo.App.1994) (reversing trial court's denial of a challenge for cause where juror maintained throughout voir dire that she needed to hea......
-
Chapter 5 - § 5.2 • JURY SELECTION
...of a defendant taking the stand would be used in any way as a factor, consideration, or evidence of guilt. Compare People v. Blackmer, 888 P.2d 343 (Colo. App. 1994) (trial court erred by refusing to sustain challenge for cause when juror's state of mind evinced enmity or bias toward defend......