STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DERRICK A. DOTSON (Parish of Orleans)
No. 2016-K-0473
Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 18, 2017
234 So. 3d 341
FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
The Opinions handed down on the 18th day of October, 2017, are as follows:
BY WEIMER, J.:
2016-K -0473 STATE OF LOUISIANA v. DERRICK A. DOTSON (Parish of Orleans)
The state‘s writ application was granted to consider whether the court of appeal erred in reversing defendant‘s conviction, finding that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a challenge for cause of a prospective juror. During voir dire, the prospective juror gave an equivocal answer as to whether she could be impartial after indicating her mother had been the victim of a violent crime. The record of the voir dire proceeding is bereft of any information that would clarify the prospective juror‘s response, and the remainder of her responses during voir dire indicate that she would be impartial. As such, deference should have been afforded by the appellate court to the trial court‘s ruling on the challenge. The decision of the appellate court is reversed and this matter is remanded to the appellate court for determination of the remaining issue raised on appeal by defendant. For these reasons, the decision of the appellate court is reversed. This matter is remanded to the appellate court for determination of the remaining issue raised on appeal by defendant. REVERSED and REMANDED.
GUIDRY, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
HUGHES, J., dissents for the reasons given by Guidry, J.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DERRICK A. DOTSON
NO. 2016-K-0473
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
10/18/17
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
The state‘s writ application was granted to consider whether the court of appeal erred in reversing defendant‘s conviction, finding that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying a challenge for cause of a prospective juror. During voir dire, the prospective juror gave an equivocal answer as to whether she could be impartial after indicating her mother had been the victim of a violent crime. The record of the voir dire proceeding is bereft of any information that would clarify the prospective juror‘s response, and the remainder of her responses during voir dire indicate that she would be impartial. As such, deference should have been afforded by the appellate court to the trial court‘s ruling on the challenge. For the reasons that follow, the decision of the appellate court is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the appellate court for determination of the remaining issue raised on appeal by defendant.
In 1994, K.T. was crossing the street in eastern New Orleans when a man she recognized as someone who had worked with her mother in the past called her to his car. When she walked over, she saw a gun on his lap. He ordered her to get into the car and then drove to a wooded area where he forced K.T. to engage in sexual intercourse. K.T. reported the incident and underwent a sexual assault exam, but the police investigation did not lead to any suspects.
In 1996, H.B. was at home when a man came to the door and asked to speak to her brother. She recognized the man as someone to whom her brother had previously given money. The man claimed that he wanted to thank H.B.‘s brother for the money. Later, when H.B.‘s brother left for work, the man returned and claimed that he was locked out of his house. He asked H.B. to make a telephone call for him, and, when she returned to tell him the number did not work, he forced his way into the house and sexually assaulted her. H.B. reported the crime and underwent a sexual assault examination, but the police investigation did not yield any suspects.
In 2010, while investigating unsolved rape cases, a detective of the police force searched the national DNA data base (CODIS) and discovered that DNA from both cases matched that of Derrick A. Dotson (defendant). The state subsequently charged defendant with two counts of aggravated rape. The jury found defendant guilty of the 1996 forcible rape of H.B., but could not reach a verdict as to the charge involving K.T. The court sentenced defendant as a third felony offender to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole, probation, or suspension of sentence.
The court of appeal majority reversed defendant‘s conviction, finding the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant‘s challenge for cause of a prospective juror after defendant exhausted all of his peremptory challenges. State v. Dotson, 15-0191, p. 8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/17/16), 187 So.3d 79, 83-84. At issue was whether the prospective juror, whose mother had been raped and murdered, could be impartial. When asked by the trial court if the circumstances related to her mother‘s death had any bearing on her ability to be impartial, she stated, “Yes, it might.” No direct follow-up questions were asked by the trial court, the state, or the defense as to this particular response. Although the prospective juror was not asked to, and did not, provide any additional insight to this particular response, the appellate court found that “bias, prejudice, or the inability to render judgment according to law can be reasonably implied” from her initial response. Dotson, 15-0191 at 8, 187 So.3d at 84. Accordingly, the trial court was found to have abused its discretion by denying defendant‘s challenge for cause.
The state‘s writ application was granted to determine if the trial court abused its discretion in finding that defendant failed to prove that the prospective juror was not impartial. State v. Dotson, 16-0473 (La. 3/24/17), 216 So.3d 809.
DISCUSSION
When a defendant uses all twelve of his peremptory challenges, an erroneous ruling by a trial court on a challenge for cause that results in depriving the defendant of a peremptory challenge constitutes a substantial violation of the defendant‘s constitutional and statutory rights, requiring reversal of the conviction and sentence. Juniors, 03-2425 at 7-8, 915 So.2d at 304; see
A defendant may challenge a juror for cause if “[t]he juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality.”
Voir dire examination of prospective jurors is designed to discover bases for challenges for cause and to secure information for an intelligent exercise of peremptory challenges. State v. Drew, 360 So.2d 500, 513 (La. 1978). The questions propounded are designed to determine any potential adverse influence on the prospective juror‘s ability to render an impartial verdict. See id. A prospective juror‘s responses during voir dire cannot be considered in isolation. See State v. Frost, 97-1771, p. 8 (La. 12/1/98), 727 So.2d 417, 426.
A trial judge is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and such a ruling is subject to reversal only when a review of the entire voir dire reveals the judge abused his discretion. Robertson, 630 So.2d at 1281. The trial judge‘s refusal to excuse a prospective juror on the ground he is not impartial is not an abuse of discretion where, after further inquiry or instruction (frequently called “rehabilitation“), the prospective juror has demonstrated a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and the evidence. Id.
During voir dire, the trial court was questioning prospective juror number 9 (“K.C.“), who indicated she was an attorney, when the following exchange took place:
[Court:] [K.C.], are you familiar with the people involved in today‘s case?
[K.C.:] No, sir.
[Court:] Anything about the facts of the case?
[K.C.:] It may be a case I‘ve been reading about in the paper, but I‘m not sure.
[Court:] Okay. Hold that thought.
[Court:] Have you served on a jury before?
[K.C.:] Yes, sir.
[Court:] What kind of case?
[K.C.:] A possession of a narcotics case and the defendant took an acquittal.
[Court:] Was that recently?
[K.C.:] A few years.
[Court:] Have you or close friends or relatives ever worked in law enforcement?
[K.C.:] No, sir.
[Court:] Have you or a close friend or relative been a crime victim?
[K.C.:] Yes, sir.
[Court:] Could you tell us a little bit about that?
[K.C.:] My mother was raped and murdered.
[Court:] Would that event have any bearing on your ability to be a fair and impartial juror in today‘s case?
[K.C.:] Yes, it might.
[Court:] Do you have any questions for me?
[K.C.:] No.
[Court:] Thank you very much. [Emphasis added.]
At this point, the trial court did not ask any follow-up questions of K.C.‘s responses.
When K.C. was later questioned in chambers, the following colloquy took place:
The Court: .... [K.C.], number 9, said that she saw something in the news.
[Defense:] That‘s the one that the mother was raped and killed.
The Court: [K.C.], would you have a seat right here and make yourself comfortable. [K.C.], earlier today when I asked you the question do you know anything about the facts of the case, you said I think this is the case I‘ve been reading about in the news. Is that what you said?
[K.C.]: Correct.
The Court: Can you expound on that?
[K.C.]: I was thinking this man was a New Orleans Police Officer. I‘ve been reading some articles about a police officer being accused of rape. It doesn‘t sound like it from voir dire that it‘s the same case.
The Court: If it turns out that this is not that case, whatever you‘ve been reading in the news about a police officer, have any bearing on your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?
[K.C.]: No.
The Court: State?
[State:] No questions.
The Court: Defense?
[Defense:] None, your Honor.
The trial judge‘s comment during voir dire (“Hold that thought.“) and the questions asked by the trial judge of K.C. in chambers indicate that K.C. was taken into chambers for further questioning regarding her knowledge of the case based on media coverage. Aside from recognizing that K.C.‘s mother had been raped and murdered, defense counsel did not revisit K.C.‘s prior response regarding whether her mother‘s ordeal would affect K.C.‘s ability to be impartial in defendant‘s cases.
When defense counsel later challenged K.C. for cause, the following exchange took place:
The Court: .... Panelist Number 9.
[State]: Acceptable.
[Defense]: Challenge for cause, Your Honor.
The Court: Cause based on what?
[Defense]: Her mother was murdered and raped.
The Court: That‘s not cause.
[Defense]: She said that would --
The Court: No, she didn‘t.
[Defense]: Yes, she did. Also, she said she knows a witness.
The Court: She never said that.
[Defense]: [K.C.] said that -- didn‘t she --
The Court: What witness did she say she knew?
[Defense]: I don‘t remember.
[State]: Ann Montgomery, but she said she doesn‘t remember really how she knows her. It would not affect her ability to be fair and impartial.
The Court: Is that going to be D2?
[Defense]: No. Judge, she said –
The Court: Is that going to be D2? The cause is denied.
[Defense]: It‘s denied.
The Court: Is that going to be D2?
[Defense]: If it has to be.
[Defense]: D2.
The Court: Well, it doesn‘t have to be. It can be J3.
[Defense]: She said –
The Court: Look, that‘s the fifth time you‘ve told me that. ...
The above-quoted colloquy pertaining to defendant‘s challenge reveals the trial judge found that K.C.‘s “[y]es, it might” response (to the trial judge‘s question concerning whether her mother‘s ordeal would have a bearing on her ability to remain impartial) alone was insufficient to establish K.C. could not be impartial so as to constitute cause for excusing her under
“[T]he fact that a juror may have painful memories associated with the subject of a criminal trial is not listed as a basis for a challenge for cause under
The law does not require that a jury be composed of individuals who have not personally been a crime victim or who do not have close friends or relatives who have
Upon the trial judge‘s recognition that K.C.‘s relationship with a rape victim was alone insufficient to disqualify K.C., defense counsel referenced K.C.‘s response to the trial judge‘s question regarding her ability to be impartial due to her mother‘s ordeal. Defense counsel interpreted K.C.‘s response as “yes,” that is, K.C. could not be impartial in the instant cases against defendant. However, as the trial judge again correctly observed, K.C. did not declare that her mother‘s rape and murder would affect her ability to be impartial, as her affirmative response was immediately qualified by an expression of uncertainty–“it might.”5 In this respect, K.C.‘s testimony differs from that of prospective juror number 20, who testified that as a victim of molestation she could not be impartial and who was dismissed by the trial
In Nix, 327 So.2d at 326, a murder trial, the trial court denied defendant‘s challenge for cause of a prospective juror who testified that the murder of his brother-in-law might affect his thinking on the case. The equivocalness of that statement, together with the prospective juror‘s testimony “that he understood the principles of law upon which he was instructed by the trial judge, including the presumption of innocence, and that he could apply those principles in the case at bar” was found by this court to be sufficient to support the trial court‘s denial of the defendant‘s challenge for cause. Id.
Other cases involving equivocal responses that were found by this court to be insufficient to obtain reversal of the trial court‘s denial of a challenge for cause include: State v. Robinson, 353 So.2d 1001, 1004 (La. 1977) (Where a prospective juror‘s impartiality was brought into question by her “maybe not” response to whether she would acquit the defendant of one crime even if she thought he was guilty of other misconduct, this court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court‘s denial of a challenge for cause in light of the prospective juror‘s subsequent responses which indicated she would be impartial.); State v. Passman, 345 So.2d 874, 879-80 (La. 1977) (A prospective juror responded that he might be influenced by whether the defendant took the stand on his own behalf, implicating
Also noteworthy on this point is State v. Robinson, 08-0652 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/13/09), 11 So.3d 613, writ denied, 09-1437 (La. 2/26/10), 28 So.3d 269. In response to a question by the prosecutor, a prospective juror in Robinson “stated during voir dire that she did not know whether she could be impartial due to the fact that three of her children had been crime victims.” Id., 08-0652 at 11, 11 So.3d at 620. In analyzing this equivocal response, the appellate court found that the prospective juror only “stated that she did not know if she could be impartial and did not affirmatively state she could not be” and observed “that defense counsel never asked [the prospective juror] any questions at all.” Id., 08-0652 at 13, 11 So.3d at 621. The Robinson court concluded that the prospective juror‘s “responses as a whole [did not reveal] facts from which bias, prejudice, or an inability to render judgment according to law might be reasonably implied.” Id.
In State v. Ruffin, 11-0135 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/21/11), 82 So.3d 497, writ denied sub nom., State ex rel. Ruffin v. State, 12-0400 (La. 9/12/12), 98 So.3d 813, a prospective juror responded that “it may” when asked if “her niece‘s death would affect her ability to sit on the jury.” Id. 11-0135 at 25, 82 So.3d at 514. Upon further questioning, this prospective juror revealed that serving as a juror would be emotional for her in that it would likely cause her to have flashbacks. She testified that her
In the instant case, in reviewing the trial judge‘s denial of defendant‘s challenge, instead of relying on this court‘s decision in Nix, the facts of which are strikingly similar to those of the instant case, or its decisions in Robinson and Ruffin, the appellate court relied on its decision in Holmes. The defendant in Holmes was charged with aggravated rape, aggravated kidnapping, and aggravated crime against nature. On appeal of his conviction for aggravated crime against nature, the defendant argued that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his “challenge for cause to a [prospective] juror whose husband had previously been held hostage and who could not say affirmatively that the experience would not affect her ability to be fair.” Holmes, 619 So.2d at 762. When the members of the jury venire were questioned by the state about why they did not “feel like [they] could sit on this type of case,” the prospective juror stated that her “husband was held hostage.” Id. at 763. When the court asked if the fact that her “husband was a victim of a crime” would cause her to be unfair, she stated, “I think it might. I‘m not real sure.” Id. During further questioning by the trial court, the prospective juror explained that her husband‘s kidnapping had been a very traumatic time for her. Id. at 764. Defense counsel followed up by asking the prospective juror if she could “assure [him] that
Defendant argues, and the appellate court found, that the facts of the instant case are more akin to those of Holmes, while the state likens the facts of this case more to the facts of Robinson and Ruffin. Unlike Holmes, the prospective juror in this matter (K.C.) was not questioned further by anyone as to her “[y]es, it might” response. For this reason, the instant case, like Robinson and Ruffin, is clearly distinguishable from Holmes.9 As in Nix, K.C.‘s use of the word “might” relative to the impact that her family member‘s ordeal as a victim of a similar crime would have on K.C.‘s ability to be impartial in the instant cases rendered her response equivocal. Because of the equivocalness of K.C.‘s response, the need for rehabilitation of K.C. by the state had not been triggered in this case. Furthermore, unlike the prospective juror in Holmes, K.C. was never asked to assure that she could be impartial to the defendant in these cases.
DECREE
For these reasons, the decision of the appellate court is reversed. This matter is remanded to the appellate court for determination of the remaining issue raised on appeal by defendant.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DERRICK A. DOTSON
No. 2016-K-0473
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
10/18/17
Guidry, J.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
I respectfully dissent from the majority‘s decision today. In this case, the potential juror expressed during voir dire an undoubtedly equivocal response that she “might” be impartial or biased against this defendant, charged with two counts of aggravated rape, because her mother had been raped and murdered. In the face of this clear expression of possible bias, there was no follow-up questioning by the trial court, the state, or the defense as to whether the juror would be willing and able to decide the case impartially according to the law and evidence. The trial court, when the prospective juror was later challenged for cause, did not allow a full discussion of the juror‘s response regarding her possible bias, and more troublingly, insisted the potential juror had not said anything that would bring into question her inability to be impartial, when in fact she did. See Anti, pp. 6 and 8; State v. Dotson, 15-0191 p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), 187 So.3d 79, 83-84.
This court will not reverse a trial court‘s ruling on a challenge for cause unless it appears, upon review of the voir dire examination as a whole, that the trial judge‘s exercise of its discretion has been arbitrary or unreasonable, resulting in prejudice to the accused. Anti, p. 17. While deference is certainly owed to the trial court‘s determination, where due, I find in this case the trial court abused its discretion, because, upon review of the prospective juror‘s voir dire examination as a whole, her bias, prejudice, or the inability to render judgment according to the
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS DERRICK A. DOTSON
No. 2016-K-0473
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
10/18/17
Hughes, J.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ORLEANS
Notes
The Court: Have you or any close friends or relatives been a victim of a crime?
Juror [ ]: Yes.
The Court: Can you tell us a little bit about that?
Juror [ ]: My husband was murdered. My house was broken into and I was molested at 12 years old.
The Court: Would those events have --
Juror [ ]: Yes.
The Court: Let me finish the question. Would those events have any bearing on your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?
Juror [ ]: Yes.
The Court: So you could not serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case?
Juror [ ]: That‘s correct.