v. Blassingame, 2021 COA 11

Defendant Daniel Blassingame was tried for sexual assault (victim incapable of appraising conduct); jury convicted on one count and acquitted on another; sentence imposed and appeal followed.
Alleged victim C.A. testified she drank at a party, lost memory after shots, woke with no pants and Blassingame attempting sex; Blassingame testified the encounter was consensual and that he and C.A. discussed Plan B afterward.
During individual voir dire, Juror S disclosed childhood molestation and that her father had not believed her; she repeatedly expressed fear her experience would make her more likely to believe an alleged victim.
Juror S gave equivocal answers: agreed she "could try" to follow burden/instructions but also said she was "afraid" she would be inclined to believe the victim and that people "just get away with things."
Defense moved to strike Juror S for cause; the trial court denied the challenge, explaining a juror must be unwavering ("no matter what the rest of the evidence is") to be excused for bias.
The Court of Appeals held the trial court misstated the legal standard, concluded Juror S should have been excused for cause, reversed the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Juror S should have been excused for cause because of bias toward the victim	Juror S affirmed she could follow presumption of innocence and burden and thus need not be excused	Juror S's history and repeated equivocation showed a real risk she would favor the victim; rehabilitation was inadequate	Court: Trial court abused discretion; Juror S's equivocation plus inadequate rehabilitation required excusal; conviction reversed
Whether the trial court applied correct legal standard in assessing juror bias	People: trial court properly assessed demeanor and sincerity and could find no disqualifying bias	Blassingame: trial court misstated law by requiring juror to say she would believe the victim "no matter what the rest of the evidence is" before excusal	Court: Trial court misstated law — a juror need not be unwavering to be disqualified; standard is whether juror can reasonably be expected to decide impartially after rehabilitation; here standard misapplied

Nailor v. People, 612 P.2d 79 (Colo. 1980) (juror's expressed doubt about her ability to be fair can require a challenge for cause)
Sandoval v. People, 733 P.2d 319 (Colo. 1987) (sincerity of juror's responses does not alone resolve disqualifying bias)
Merrow v. People, 181 P.3d 319 (Colo. App. 2007) (equivocal juror views about a key issue require rehabilitation or excusal)
Prator v. People, 833 P.2d 819 (Colo. App. 1992) (discusses juror bias standards; court rejects the idea that juror must be unwavering to be excused)
Luman v. People, 994 P.2d 432 (Colo. App. 1999) (challenge for cause required where juror made equivocal fairness statements and rehabilitation was inadequate)
Carillo v. People, 974 P.2d 478 (Colo. 1999) (trial court entitled to assess juror demeanor but must apply correct legal standard)
Wilson v. People, 114 P.3d 19 (Colo. App. 2004) (court may consider entire voir dire when reviewing challenge-for-cause rulings)
Morgan v. People, 624 P.2d 1331 (Colo. 1981) (appellate courts must ensure fairness and review improper denial of cause challenges)