State v. Smith, 555 P.3d 850

Nathan Scott Smith was convicted of first degree rape of a child after a jury trial in Washington.
During jury selection, Smith challenged three potential jurors for cause, including venireperson 27 (VP 27), arguing actual bias based on her statements indicating hesitation about holding out against the majority if undecided (“on the fence”).
The trial court denied Smith’s for-cause challenge to VP 27, finding her responses equivocal and not a clear indication of bias.
VP 27 served on the jury, which returned a unanimous guilty verdict; Smith’s other peremptory challenges were exhausted on other jurors.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the trial court abused its discretion and reversed Smith’s conviction solely on the basis of VP 27’s alleged bias.
The Washington Supreme Court granted review solely on whether the denial of the for-cause challenge to VP 27 was an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Smith’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether VP 27’s statements during voir dire showed actual bias requiring removal for cause	VP 27 was likely to change her vote for expediency, suggesting inability to hold State to burden of proof	Statements were equivocal, did not unequivocally show actual bias; trial court within discretion	Denial of for-cause challenge was not abuse of discretion; conviction reinstated
Standard for appellate review of challenges for cause based on alleged juror bias	Appellate court can reverse when record shows clear evidence of bias	Great deference owed to trial judge, reversal only for manifest abuse of discretion	Appellate review should be highly deferential to trial judge’s decision
Whether equivocal statements by a juror suffice for removal for cause	Equivocal statements can amount to actual bias, especially if work hardship at play	Only unequivocal statements (or multiple objective factors) suffice; equivocation alone does not	Mere equivocation does not show actual bias; need unequivocal evidence or combination of factors
Whether previous precedent requires clear rehabilitation after equivocation	Noltie and subsequent cases require clear commitment to impartiality after bias suggestion	Precedent allows trial judge to weigh equivocation, considering context/demeanor	Current standard (Noltie) affirmed; no override by later federal circuit precedent

State v. Noltie, 116 Wn.2d 831 (Wash. 1991) (establishes great deference to trial court’s bias determinations; equivocation does not mandate exclusion)
State v. Davis, 175 Wn.2d 287 (Wash. 2012) (lays out standards for removal of biased jurors)
State v. Gregory, 192 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2018) (partially abrogates Davis, provides guidance on bias review)
State v. Sassen Van Elsloo, 191 Wn.2d 798 (Wash. 2018) (clarifies actual bias removal standard)
State v. Gonzalez, 111 Wn. App. 276 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (unequivocal bias statement requires removal; equivocation alone insufficient)