Jurors – Record supports trial court’s refusal to strike juror for cause

Where the defendant argued the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike a juror for cause, but the record does not establish or even suggest the juror held a preconceived opinion of such fixed character that it repelled the presumption of innocence or that he was not otherwise indifferent to the case, this argument failed.

Background

Justin Ray Dutcher appeals his conviction for possession of Schedule I or II controlled substance in violation of Code § 18.2-250. He argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to strike a juror for cause.

Analysis

Granting deference to the trial court, which was able to see and hear the prospective jurors, and considering the voir dire as a whole, this court concludes that the court’s finding that J.B. was impartial was not “plainly wrong” and did not constitute manifest error. J.B. stated unequivocally that he could be impartial and repeatedly said that he could be fair. He was questioned—twice—and thoroughly vetted by the trial court.

In fact, at no point was J.B. equivocal or tentative with his responses that he could be impartial and fair. This record simply does not establish or even suggest that J.B. held a preconceived opinion of such “fixed character [that it] repel[led] the presumption of innocence” or that he was not otherwise indifferent to the case. For these reasons, Dutcher has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to strike potential juror J.B. for cause.

Affirmed.

Dutcher v. Commonwealth, Record No. 0183-25-2, April 28, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (per curiam). From the Circuit Court of the City of Colonial Heights (Novey). (Sante J. Piracci, on brief), for appellant. (Jason S. Miyares, Attorney General; Anna M. Hughes, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee. VLW 026-7-163. 6 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-7-163
Virginia Lawyers Weekly