Rouse v. State

The trial court reversibly erred in failing to strike for cause a juror, who never indicated that he could set aside his opinion of guilt if the defendant did not testify.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Walter Rouse was found guilty by a jury of burglary. He appeals following the denial of his motion for new trial, arguing in his sole enumeration of error that the trial court erred by failing to strike Juror No. 16 for cause. As to this issue, the transcript shows the following exchange between the Prosecutor and Juror No. 16: State: “Sir, Can you think of any reason why you would not be fair and impartial in this case” Juror: “Possibly if the defendant did not testify.” State: “Ok. Now, you understand, sir, that it’s the defendant’s right not to testify” Juror: “Yes.” State: “And you understand that he does not have to prove his case; I’m the one that has the burden of proving the case.” Juror: “Yes.” State: “With those understandings in mind, would you be able to sit here and listen to the case fairly” Juror: “Yes, I believe I would.” State: “And would you be able to not necessarily hold the fact that the defendant does not testify against him under those circumstances” Juror: “It would put a doubt in my mind.” State: “Would you listen to the evidence, though, and determine your verdict based on the evidence, regardless of whether the defendant testified or not testified” Juror: “Yes, I would attempt to do so.” Subsequently, the following exchange took place between defense counsel and Juror No. 16:

Defense Counsel: “I believe you said that if Mr. Rouse did not testify, that you would have some doubt, and it would possibly cause you to not be fair and impartial.” Juror: “It usually puts a doubt in my mind.” Rouse subsequently moved to strike the juror for cause. The trial court denied the motion without attempting to question or to rehabilitate the juror.

Rouse v. State

The trial court reversibly erred in failing to strike for cause a juror, who never indicated that he could set aside his opinion of guilt if the defendant did not testify.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report