PEOPLE OF MI V WARREN EDWARD ENGLISH III
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 4, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
v
No. 269887
St. Joseph Circuit Court
LC No. 05-013020-FH
WARREN EDWARD ENGLISH, III,
Defendant-Appellant/CrossAppellee.
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree that the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the basis that had the juror
disclosed the information during voir dire, she automatically would have been excused, and join
in the statement that a victim of sexual assault is not automatically excusable for cause.
Nevertheless, I do not agree that the remedy for the trial court’s erroneous analysis is to reinstate
the verdict. Rather, I would remand for reconsideration under the proper legal standard.
As the majority observes, defendant is entitled to a new trial only if he was actually
prejudiced by the juror’s presence on the jury, or the juror was excusable for cause. Only the
latter inquiry is implicated here. While the trial court erred in finding that the juror was
excusable for cause simply because the juror had been sexually abused, it does not follow that
the juror was not, in fact, excusable for cause. A trial court is not obliged to accept a juror’s
declaration that the juror is not biased if there is reason to doubt the assertion. Rather, a trial
court must make its own determination, taking into account all the circumstances, including the
juror’s statements and demeanor, whether the juror can be fair and impartial. Here, the trial
court should make a determination on remand, considering the circumstances of the voir dire, the
later disclosure, the credibility of the juror’s explanation and declaration of impartiality, and any
other relevant factors.
I agree that defendant’s other claims of trial and sentencing error lack merit.
/s/ Helene N. White
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.