the record indicates that after Ms. Torgrimson made the statement that she knew Defendants past history and could not be impartial she was immediately excused for cause by the Court. After excusing the juror for cause, Defendants attorney continued with his voir dire and passed the jury for cause, the State asked its questions and passed the jury for cause, the jury was selected and sent for lunch, to be sworn in after lunch, and after lunch Defendant asked that the jury be dismissed. The Court denied Defendants motion because the Court was of the opinion that the comment made by Ms. Torgrimson did not taint the jury pool. Defendant argues that not dismissing the jury was a fundamental unfairness to Defendant because Defendant stipulated to his prior convictions for the specific purpose that they would not be brought in at trial for the jury to hear. The Court is of the opinion that Ms. Torgrimsons statement was not specific as to any what kind of history she was aware of and never stated it was criminal history. Further, Ms. Torgrimson was immediately excused by the Court for cause and Defendant had an opportunity to question the jury panel and upon completing his questioning passed them for cause and a jury was selected prior to Defendants request to dismiss the jury panel because it was tainted. The Court does not feel that the one vague statement made by Ms. Torgrimson tainted the jury so as to dismiss the jury panel. After the Court denied Defendants request to dismiss the jury panel, Defendant voluntarily waive his right a jury trial. The Court went through, very thoroughly, with Defendant, on the record, his right to a jury trial and his decision to waive the jury trial. Further, Attorney Rolsch indicated that he had previously spoken with Defendant regarding whether to have a jury trial or a court trial and explained to Defendant his right to a jury trial. The Court finds that based on the record and the thorough explanation of his right to a jury trial, Defendant freely and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial. IV. Verdict Justified by the Evidence: The Court carefully weighed the evidence and considered the credibility of the witnesses in making its decision in this case. Defendant, in his affidavit, makes various observations regarding the Courts Findings of Fact in the Order dated March 13, 2014. The Court gives no credence to Defendants affidavit. However, the Court notes that no evidence was presented at trial to contradict the victims testimony as to the injuries she received as a result of the incident with Defendant or that she sought medical attention. 10 I Further, Deputy Rasmussen photographed a bruise on the victims arm which the victim stated was inflicted by Defendant and no evidence was presented to contradict the victims testimony that she received the bruise from Defendant. The Court finds the verdict was justified by the evidence presented at trial and Defendant is not entitled to a new trial or an evidentiary hearing in this matter. 11
Posted on: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 23:30:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015