People v. Luman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that challenge for cause should have been granted where juror made equivocal statements about her ability to be fair and then was inadequately rehabilitated
• holding that application of statute to date range beginning before its enactment violated prohibition on ex post facto laws
• reversing convictions because “there was no rehabilitation . . . containing unequivocal statements by the juror of [their] commitment to fairness that might support the trial court’s conclusion”
• reversing conviction and finding that if state presents similar evidence on retrial of defendant, jury could conclude that defendant was in position of trust relative to child victim within the meaning of applicable statute
• “In addition, taking the voir dire as a whole, we conclude there is no support in the record for a finding or conclusion that this juror could be fair and impartial or that she ever expressly or impliedly said she could.”
• setting forth abuse of discretion standard

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).