State of Louisiana v. Derrick A. Dotson, 2016-K -0473

In 1994 and 1996 two women (K.T. and H.B.) were sexually assaulted; DNA later matched Derrick A. Dotson and he was charged with two counts of aggravated/forcible rape.
A jury convicted Dotson of the 1996 rape; he was sentenced to life at hard labor as a third-felony offender.
During voir dire prospective juror K.C. (an attorney) disclosed her mother had been raped and murdered and when asked if that would affect her impartiality replied, “Yes, it might.”
No follow-up questions were asked about that specific response at the initial voir dire; K.C. was later questioned in chambers about media exposure but counsel declined further inquiry into the impartiality remark.
Defense challenged K.C. for cause after exhausting peremptory strikes; the trial court denied the challenge and the court of appeal reversed, finding the denial an abuse of discretion.
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the State’s writ, reversed the appellate court, and remanded for consideration of Dotson’s remaining appellate claim.

Issue	State's Argument	Dotson's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying a challenge for cause to a juror who said her mother’s rape/murder “might” affect her impartiality	K.C.’s “it might” answer was equivocal; the trial court reasonably determined she need not be excused absent a definitive statement of inability to be fair; defense had opportunity to question further but declined	K.C.’s statement demonstrated possible bias and the court should have excused her (or rehabilitated) so defendant was deprived of a peremptory strike	The Supreme Court held the denial was within the trial court’s discretion: the response was equivocal, the voir dire record otherwise showed willingness to be impartial, and appellate deference to the trial judge was required; reversed the appellate court and remanded.

State v. Juniors, 915 So.2d 291 (La. 2005) (use of all peremptory strikes and erroneous denial of cause presumes prejudice)
State v. Nix, 327 So.2d 301 (La. 1976) (equivocal statements may be insufficient to show juror bias when overall voir dire indicates ability to follow law)
State v. Holmes, 619 So.2d 761 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1993) (juror who could not affirm impartiality required cause)
State v. Robinson, 353 So.2d 1001 (La. 1977) (equivocal answers can be cured by further voir dire; no abuse where later responses show impartiality)
State v. Ruffin, 82 So.3d 497 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (equivocal “it may” answer did not mandate exclusion absent unequivocal inability to serve)
State v. Dorsey, 74 So.3d 603 (La. 2011) (being a crime victim or related to a victim does not automatically disqualify a juror)
State v. Miller, 776 So.2d 396 (La. 2000) (appellate courts should give great deference to trial judge’s credibility and demeanor-based rulings on challenges for cause)