Case Title: Sharplin v. State

Citation: 357 So. 2d 940

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1978-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
357 So. 2d 940 (1978) Horace SHARPLIN v. STATE of Mississippi. No. 50420. Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 19, 1978. Rehearing Denied May 10, 1978. A.R. Wright, Jr., Morris C. Phillips, Jr., Carthage, for appellant. A.F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. Before ROBERTSON, SUGG and WALKER, JJ. WALKER, Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal from a conviction of manslaughter returned after a jury trial in the Circuit Court of Leake County, Mississippi. Appellant was sentenced to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections. *941 Appellant first contends that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling his motion for a special venire. In order to understand appellant's argument here, it must be noted that this is the second time this case has come before us. Appellant was originally indicted for the murder of his estranged wife and convicted of manslaughter, but the original conviction was reversed because of the participation, as a prosecutor, of the county attorney, Vernon R. Cotton, who had handled appellant's divorce case. In the interim between the two trials, a second material development occurred, Marcus Gordon, the district attorney who was the prosecutor at the first trial became a circuit judge for the district which encompasses Leake County. Because of Judge Gordon's previous involvement in the case as district attorney, he was disqualified from participating in the retrial necessitating the appointment of a special judge. On the first day of the April 1977 Term of court, counsel for appellant filed a motion for a special venire pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 13-5-77 (1972). On May 3, 1977, at 1:15 p.m., the case was called for trial by Judge Gordon. The state announced ready and counsel for appellant asked to be heard on the motion for a special venire. At this point, Judge Gordon made the following statement: Governor Finch appointed the Honorable Harold Davidson to sit as Special Judge for the trial of this cause on May 3, 1977, and at 2:00 p.m. on that day, Judge Davidson assumed the bench and overruled the motion for a special venire on the grounds that the motion was not timely called to the attention of the court and to grant it would cause those witnesses who were from out-of-state unreasonable expense and inconvenience because the start of the trial would probably have been delayed until the following week. In Porter v. State, 193 Miss. 774, 10 So. 2d 377 (1942), the Court held: In the case at bar, it appears from the statement of Judge Gordon, which is set forth above, that the court announced approximately two weeks prior to the first day of the April 1977 Term of court (at the setting of the docket) that the case was ready for trial. Yet, the motion for a special venire was not filed until April 25, the first day of the April 1977 Term and was not called to the court's attention until May 3, 1977, the day of trial. Therefore, the motion for a special venire was not timely filed under the rule announced in Porter v. State, supra. Appellant argues, in substance, that this case comes within the exception noted by the Court in Porter for motions which are filed in ample time for the special venire to be drawn, summoned and to appear on the day set for trial. The motion was originally filed on April 25, 1977, the first day of the term, and the trial was set to begin on May 2, 1977. We do not think that the contention is well taken. It appears from Judge Gordon's statement that although the motion was filed on April 25, 1977, it was not brought to his attention until just before the case was called for trial. We have previously held that it is incumbent upon the party filing a motion to follow up that action by bringing it to the attention of the judge and by requesting a hearing upon it. Dyer v. State, 300 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1974). Appellant argues that this rule should not apply here because Judge Gordon was disqualified from presiding in this case and the identity of the special judge was not known until May 3, 1977, and, therefore, there was no judge to whom the motion could have been presented before May 3, 1977. There is no merit to this contention as the drawing of a special venire is purely a ministerial act to be performed by the circuit judge, requiring no discretion except as to the number of prospective jurors to be drawn, and no decision making process. A circuit judge is therefore not disqualified from drawing a special venire even though he may be disqualified from presiding over the trial of the case in which the special venire is drawn. We have considered the remaining assignments of error and find them to be wholly without merit. The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., SMITH and ROBERTSON, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, BOWLING and COFER, JJ., concur. LEE, J., took no part.