for-cause challenge in Indiana

2019We will reverse the trial court's decision on a for-cause challenge "only when it is 'illogical or arbitrary.' " Oswalt , 19 N.E.3d at 245 (quoting Whiting , 969 N.E.2d at 29 ); see also Merritt v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp ., 765 N.E.2d 1232 , 1235 (Ind. 2002). [21] Here, Wallick asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his for-cause challenges to the following six individuals: Alcorn, Gregory, Walters, Ridner, Hunter, *651 and Wright. 2 He explains that five of those six "would require Wallick to prove his case by more evidence than the law required[,]" and two of the five

2015Oswalt, 19 N.E.3d at 245 . “[T]he trial court has ‘a broad discretion and duty ... to see that the jury as finally selected is subject to no solid basis of objection on the score of impartiality.’ ” Whiting, 969 N.E.2d at 29 (omission in original) (quoting Frazier v. United States, 335 U.S. 497, 511 , 69 S.Ct. 201 , 93 L.Ed. 187 (1948)).

2019We will reverse the trial court's decision on a for-cause challenge "only when it is 'illogical or arbitrary.' " Oswalt , 19 N.E.3d at 245 (quoting Whiting , 969 N.E.2d at 29 ); see also Merritt v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp ., 765 N.E.2d 1232 , 1235 (Ind. 2002). [21] Here, Wallick asserts that the trial court erred when it denied his for-cause challenges to the following six individuals: Alcorn, Gregory, Walters, Ridner, Hunter, *651 and Wright. 2 He explains that five of those six "would require Wallick to prove his case by more evidence than the law required[,]" and two of the five

2019The remaining for-cause challenge, as to Juror Gregory, was based on Gregory's voir dire responses - stating that he was not fond of attorneys or doctors, hates court, and did not think he could listen to all the evidence - which Wallick claims reflects a "stated inability to discharge his duties as a civil juror." Id.

2025Id. (quotations and citations omitted). [10] The exhaustion rule requires parties to use any available peremptory challenges to correct an erroneous denial of a for-cause challenge against the same prospective juror.

2025Oswalt, 19 N.E.3d at 246 . [13] Here, under Jury Rule 17 and Indiana Code Section 35-37-1-5(a)(12), Norton had grounds to make a for-cause challenge against Juror 18 based on her questionnaire response.

2025To avoid waiver, Norton contends the trial court committed fundamental error. [8] “The Federal and Indiana Constitutions guarantee the right to an impartial jury.” Oswalt v. State, 19 N.E.3d 241, 245 (Ind. 2014) (citing Ramirez v. State, 7 N.E.3d 933, 936 (Ind. 2014)).

2024Anderson cites Curtis v. State for the proposition that “[c]ounsel cannot be faulted for failing to make an objection which had no hope of success[.]” Appellant’s Reply Br. at 8 (quoting 905 N.E.2d 410, 418 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied).

2014See id. at 31-32 (citing Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , 64 S. Ct. 660 (1944), and Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S. Ct. 2273 (1988)).

2014See id. at 31-32 (citing Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , 64 S. Ct. 660 (1944), and Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S. Ct. 2273 (1988)).

2014See id. at 31-32 (citing Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , 64 S. Ct. 660 (1944), and Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S. Ct. 2273 (1988)).

2014See id. at 31-32 (citing Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 , 64 S. Ct. 660 (1944), and Ross v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 81 , 108 S. Ct. 2273 (1988)).

2002See Andrews v. State, 283 Ark. 297 , 675 S.W.2d 636, 638 (1984); Gootee v. Clevinger, 778 So.2d 1005, 1009-10 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000), review denied, 794 So.2d 603 (Fla.2001); Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).

2002See Andrews v. State, 283 Ark. 297 , 675 S.W.2d 636, 638 (1984); Gootee v. Clevinger, 778 So.2d 1005, 1009-10 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000), review denied, 794 So.2d 603 (Fla.2001); Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).

2002See Andrews v. State, 283 Ark. 297 , 675 S.W.2d 636, 638 (1984); Gootee v. Clevinger, 778 So.2d 1005, 1009-10 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000), review denied, 794 So.2d 603 (Fla.2001); Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).

2002See Andrews v. State, 283 Ark. 297 , 675 S.W.2d 636, 638 (1984); Gootee v. Clevinger, 778 So.2d 1005, 1009-10 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000), review denied, 794 So.2d 603 (Fla.2001); Johnson v. State, 43 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Tex.Crim.App.2001).