Shippy v. State

I

The appellant initially contends that the trial court erred in sustaining the State’s challenge for cause to two prospective jurors in that such action violated the mandate of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 20 L.Ed.2d 776 (1968). I would sustain this contention and reverse.

The pertinent part of the voir dire examination of prospective juror Barton is as follows:

“[PROSECUTOR]: . . . because of that, I need to ask you first of all, do you have any moral, religious, or conscientious scruples against the infliction of the death penalty?

“[BARTON]: Yes, sir, in a way I do.

“[P…