Whiting v. State
2012 Ind. LEXIS 466
| Ind. | 2012Background
- During voir dire, Juror Wright stated she could not be impartial because she knew Whiting, Whiting's grandmother, Buckner's family, and the attorneys, and she would feel uncomfortable deciding the case.
- The trial court denied Whiting's request to strike Wright for cause; Whiting did not use any peremptory challenges on Wright and Wright served on the jury.
- Whiting and co-defendant Pijnapples were tried for felony murder and robbery; Whiting was convicted and sentenced to 55 years, with robbery merged into felony murder.
- The Court of Appeals held Whiting waived the for-cause claim due to not exhausting peremptories and affirmed the conviction; transfer was sought to address juror-bias issue.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer on the juror-bias issue and affirmed the Court of Appeals on all other issues while remanding to correct the abstract of judgment.
- The Court held the juror-bias claim procedurally defaulted under exhaustion of peremptories and not reviewable for fundamental error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juror-for-cause denial is procedurally defaulted | Whiting | Whiting | Yes; Whiting failed to exhaust peremptories |
| Whether fundamental-error review applies to the default | Whiting | State | No; cannot excusably review via fundamental error |
| Policy rationale of exhaustion rule in criminal trials | Whiting | State | Exhaustion rule remains sound and protective |
Key Cases Cited
- Merritt v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 765 N.E.2d 1232 (Ind.2002) (exhaustion of peremptories required to preserve for-cause challenges)
- Robinson v. State, 453 N.E.2d 280 (Ind.1983) (for-cause challenge review requires exhaustion)
- Monserrate v. State, 265 Ind. 153 (1976) (statutory allowability of peremptory challenges; exhaustion context)
- Holland v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 474 (U.S.1989) (fair cross-section and peremptory challenges policy)
- Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 (U.S.1988) (exhaustion rule upheld against structural due process challenge)
- Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (U.S.2000) (peremptory discretion and exhaustion discussed; federal context)
- Skilling v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (U.S.2010) (impartiality and trial fairness; context for voir dire)
- United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123 (U.S.1936) (impartiality is a state of mind; broad trial-court discretion)