State v. Reed, 1 CA-CR 16-0792

Defendant Diamorrio Reed was tried for two counts of sexual conduct with a minor, one count of kidnapping, and one count of sexual abuse based on alleged 2002 events; trial occurred Oct–Nov 2014.
During voir dire, Prospective Juror 78 made an emotional, prejudicial statement that she could not be fair because of a recent personal loss and expressed that guilty people should be punished severely; she also stated that if the State prosecuted someone, that person must be guilty.
The court excused Prospective Juror 78 for cause. Reed moved to strike the entire jury panel, arguing the outburst tainted the remaining venire.
The trial judge declined to discharge the panel and instead asked the remaining prospective jurors (without repeating the specific remarks) whether any had been affected; none indicated any inability to be impartial.
Reed was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 88 years’ imprisonment; he appealed, challenging the denial of the motion to strike the panel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike the entire jury panel after a prospective juror’s emotional, prejudicial outburst	Reed: the outburst tainted the whole panel and denied due process/impartial jury	State: emotional responses do not automatically taint the panel; further inquiry can establish whether other jurors were prejudiced	Court: No abuse of discretion — absent objective indications of prejudice, the court properly inquired and secured impartial jurors; panel need not be stricken

State v. Greenwalt, 128 Ariz. 150 (1981) (party challenging panel must show unlawful empaneling or inability of jurors to be impartial)
State v. Glassel, 211 Ariz. 33 (2005) (review of denial of motion to strike panel is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Doerr, 193 Ariz. 56 (1999) (trial court best positioned to assess impact of a prospective juror’s comments; non-expert opinion statements do not automatically taint jury)
State v. Lujan, 184 Ariz. 556 (1995) (will not find abuse of discretion unless record affirmatively shows a fair and impartial jury was not secured)
State v. Tison, 129 Ariz. 526 (1981) (prejudice will not be presumed without objective indications)
State v. Blackman, 201 Ariz. 527 (App. 2001) (court need not remove jurors who indicate they can be fair and impartial)
State v. Arnett, 119 Ariz. 38 (1978) (standard for disturbing trial court’s jury-related discretion)