State of Louisiana v. Eric Dale Mickelson
2014 La. LEXIS 1821, 149 So. 3d 178, 2014 WL 4356305 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a trial court commits reversible error when it denies a defendant's challenge for cause of a prospective juror who demonstrates an unwillingness to consider a statutorily mandated mitigating circumstance, if the defendant is forced to use a peremptory challenge to remove the juror and subsequently exhausts all peremptory challenges.
Facts:
- Eric Dale Mickelson and his accomplice, Beverly Susanne Arthur, planned to break into the home of eighty-six-year-old Charles Martin.
- Mickelson gained entry into Martin's house by opening a window for Arthur, who then let him in through the front door.
- After kicking in Martin's bedroom door, Mickelson was seen by Martin.
- Mickelson grabbed Martin by the neck and strangled him until he stopped moving.
- Mickelson and Arthur then collected items from the house, including rare coins.
- They dressed Martin's body, placed it in his car, and drove to purchase crack cocaine, which Mickelson stated he was 'high' on during the crime.
- Mickelson later dismembered the victim's body.
Procedural Posture:
- A Caddo Parish grand jury indicted Eric Dale Mickelson for first-degree murder.
- Mickelson entered a plea of not guilty at the trial court.
- During jury selection (voir dire), the defense challenged prospective juror Roy Johnson for cause, arguing Johnson would not consider intoxication as a mitigating circumstance as required by law.
- The district court (trial court) denied the defense's challenge for cause.
- The defense then used one of its peremptory challenges to remove Roy Johnson from the jury panel.
- The defense proceeded to exhaust all twelve of its allotted peremptory challenges.
- The empaneled jury found Mickelson guilty of first-degree murder.
- Following the penalty phase, the jury returned a unanimous verdict of death.
- Mickelson filed a direct appeal of his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a district court commit reversible error when it denies a challenge for cause against a prospective juror who unequivocally states they will not consider a statutorily mandated mitigating circumstance, and the defendant subsequently exhausts all peremptory challenges?
Opinions:
Majority - Weimer, Justice.
Yes, the district court's denial of the challenge for cause was reversible error. A defendant's right to an impartial jury is violated when a juror is unwilling to follow the law regarding the consideration of mitigating evidence. Prospective juror Roy Johnson unequivocally and repeatedly stated he would not consider the statutorily mandated mitigating circumstance of intoxication, instead indicating it would be a factor in favor of the death penalty. Because the juror was never rehabilitated by further questioning from the court or the state, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the challenge for cause based solely on an observation of the juror's demeanor. Since the defendant was forced to use a peremptory challenge to remove this juror and subsequently exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, prejudice is presumed and automatic reversal is required.
Concurring - Guidry, Justice.
Yes, the conviction must be reversed. The trial judge is ultimately responsible for ensuring all prospective jurors understand their duties. In this case, the judge failed to conduct the necessary inquiry to confirm that the juror in question could be fair, impartial, and follow the law regarding mitigating factors, which is essential to protect the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial.
Concurring - Victory, J.
Yes, the conviction must be reversed. I agree with the majority's holding regarding the erroneous denial of the cause challenge. I write separately to note another error occurred when the district court improperly excluded testimony about the victim's character and propensities during the penalty phase, which is a relevant focus under Louisiana law.
Concurring - Hughes, J.
Yes, the conviction must be reversed. While the prospective juror was honest, his stated view that drug and alcohol use are aggravating, not mitigating, factors is contrary to Louisiana law. The critical failure was the lack of rehabilitation during voir dire to ensure he could set aside his personal views and follow the law as instructed, which made his presence on the panel legally unacceptable.
Dissenting - Clark, Justice.
No, the district court did not commit reversible error. A trial judge's determination of juror impartiality, based on direct observation of demeanor and vocal inflection, is entitled to great deference. The juror's responses, viewed as a whole rather than in isolation, indicated he could be impartial. Furthermore, defense counsel engaged in improper questioning by seeking a commitment from the juror on hypothetical scenarios, which elicited the problematic responses.
Dissenting - Johnson, C.J.
No, the district court did not commit reversible error. The majority misinterprets the juror's statements as a refusal to consider intoxication as a mitigating factor, when a full reading suggests he would consider it but would not afford it much weight. This distinction is critical, as jurors have discretion over the weight they assign to mitigating evidence. The defense failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the juror was actually impartial and unable to follow the law.
Dissenting - Knoll, J.
No, the district court did not commit reversible error. The trial judge did not abuse his broad discretion, particularly because the prospective juror's responses were elicited by defense counsel's improper questioning, which demanded a pre-judgment on a hypothetical. The juror's statement that intoxication is 'no excuse' aligns with the law, and deciding to give that factor little weight is within a juror's discretion. The record as a whole supports the trial judge’s finding that the juror could be impartial.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Louisiana's strict automatic reversal rule for the erroneous denial of a challenge for cause when the defendant exhausts all peremptory challenges. It emphasizes that a trial court's reliance on a juror's demeanor is insufficient to overcome unequivocal, on-the-record statements of bias or an inability to follow the law. The ruling serves as a strong caution to trial judges that they must either excuse such jurors or ensure a thorough, on-the-record rehabilitation, as failure to do so creates a high risk of reversal on appeal, especially in capital cases.
