Supreme Court of Indiana Finds No Issue With Seating a Juror Who Said His PTSD Might Cause Him To “Zone Out”

Should a trial judge excuse a prospective juror who says that photographic evidence of the victim’s body might cause him to “zone out” and make it hard to pay attention to the evidence? That was the question addressed by the Supreme Court of Indiana in its recent opinion in Crossland v. State, 2025 WL 1176778 (Ind. 2025).

The facts of the Crossland case are pretty disturbing, with the defendant accused of abusing and neglecting her five year-old son, Christian, causing his death. The portion of the court’s opinion dealing with the prospective juror was pretty brief. According to the court,

Crossland’s argument about another prospective juror, K.E., fails for similar reasons. K.E. suffered from PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder. During voir dire, he said that photographic evidence of Christian’s starved body might trigger his PTSD, which could cause him to “zone out” and make it hard to pay attention to the evidence. Given the risk that K.E.’s triggered PTSD might distract him from trial, Crossland asserts he was incompetent. But, again, the mere risk that a prospective juror might become inattentive during trial is not cause to remove him as incompetent.

So, let’s dig in a little more. According to the relevant Indiana Rule,

The court shall determine if the prospective jurors are qualified to serve, or, if disabled but otherwise qualified, could serve with reasonable

(e) not suffering from a physical or mental disability that prevents him or her from rendering satisfactory jury service.

Colorado has a similar statute. According to § 13-71-104 of the Colorado Revised Statutes:

(b) A person with a disability shall serve except:

(I) As otherwise provided in section 13-71-105 or 13-71-119.5; or

(II) Where the court finds that such person’s disability prevents the person from performing the duties and responsibilities of a juror.

(c) Before dismissing a person with a disability pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), the court shall interview the person to determine the reasonable accommodations, if any, consistent with federal and state law, that the court may make available to permit the person to perform the duties of a juror.

The Colorado Court of Appeals addressed this statute in People v. Close, 2022 WL 22925752 (Colo. App. 2022),

Still, Close contends that Juror K.L. could not guarantee “that she could avoid a triggering of her PTSD while endeavoring to consider the evidence in [his] case.” But Juror K.L. never stated that if her PTSD were triggered, she could not perform her duties and responsibilities as a juror. See § 13-71-104(3)(b)(II). And, as discussed, Juror K.L. consistently indicated that she did not think that her PTSD would interfere with her service as a juror. 

Applying this analysis to Crossland, it seems like the juror in that case did indicate that his PTSD would, or at least could, interfere with his service as a juror. Is that enough to say that the judge should have excused the juror? I’m not sure, but I feel like the Supreme Court of Indiana could have delved deeper into that question.

-CM