will not be disturbed on appeal without a showing of manifest error. See Fernandez v. State, 730 So.2d 277, 281 (Fla.1999); Smith v. State, 699 So.2d 629, 636 (Fla.1997). The test for determining juror competency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court. Busby v. State, 894 So.2d 88, 95 (Fla.2004); see Smith, 699 So.2d at 635; Lusk v. State, 446 So.2d 1038, 1041 (Fla.1984). If there is reasonable doubt as to whether the juror has the ability to be impartial, that juror is incompetent and must be excused for cause. See Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla.1995); Hill v. State, 477 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla.1985). “Close cases should be resolved in favor of excu 2005) (<HOLDING>); Montozzi v. State, 633 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th
holding that failure of trial court to instruct jury that state must prove beyond reasonable doubt killing was not committed in heat of passion required reversal of murder conviction even though there was general charge that state was required to prove each element of offenses beyond reasonable doubt holding a new trial required when juror is replaced by an alternate during jury deliberations holding that proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is required by the constitution holding that new trial is required where reasonable doubt existed as to whether juror possessed requisite state of mind necessary to render impartial decision holding potential prejudice caused by equating reasonable doubt with a substantial doubt mitigated by providing an alternate definition of reasonable doubt as a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate to act