SOUNDARA v. STATE, A-8329 (Alaska App. 2-8-2006)
Court of Appeals No. A-8329.Court of Appeals of Alaska.
February 8, 2006.
Appeal from the Superior Court, Third Judicial District, Anchorage, Larry D. Card, Judge. Trial Court No. 3AN-00-3896 Cr.
Paul E. Malin, Assistant Public Defender, and Barbara K. Brink, Public Defender, Anchorage, for the Appellant.
Timothy W. Terrell, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Special Prosecutions and Appeals, Anchorage, and David W. Márquez, Attorney General, Juneau, for the Appellee.
Before: Coats, Chief Judge, and Mannheimer and Stewart, Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
In our previous decision in this case, Soundara v. State,107 P.3d 290 (Alaska App. 2005), we directed the superior court to investigate whether one of Soundara’s jurors had knowingly withheld information during jury selection — information pertinent to the questions the attorneys were asking regarding jurors’ exposure to domestic violence. Id. at 298.
When Soundara’s case returned to the superior court, Superior Court Judge Larry D. Card held an evidentiary hearing at which the juror in question was examined by both of the parties and by Judge Card. At the end of this hearing, Judge Card concluded that the juror had not consciously withheld information that the juror understood to be relevant to the jury selection inquiry.
Soundara points out that there are reasons to distrust this conclusion. But our review of Judge Card’s findings regarding the juror’s knowledge and intentions is governed by the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. Under this standard, we must affirm Judge Card’s findings unless we are “[left] with a definite and firm conviction[, based] on the entire record[,] that a mistake has been made”. Geczy v. LaChappelle,636 P.2d 604, 606 n. 6 (Alaska 1981); Mathis v. Meyeres, 574 P.2d 447,449 (Alaska 1978).
While different people might draw different conclusions from the record in this case, the juror asserted that he had not knowingly withheld relevant information, and Judge Card found the juror to be credible. Judge Card was able to personally observe the juror and assess his credibility first-hand. We can not say that Judge Card’s findings are clearly erroneous.
We therefore conclude that the juror was not challengeable for cause, and that the juror properly participated in the decision of Soundara’s case.
This is the sole issue remaining from Soundara’s appeal. Accordingly, the judgement of the superior court (as amended to reflect one consolidated conviction for third-degree assault)[fn1] is AFFIRMED.
[fn1] See Soundara, 107 P.3d at 299, 302.