Case Title: Davis v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-25-1

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
Gary Duaine DAVIS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-251                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered July 1, 1996


1.   Jury -- selection of jury -- elements needed to prove prima
     facie case of discrimination as to jury selection. --
     Selection of a jury from a representative cross-section of the
     community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment
     right to trial by jury; the State may not deliberately or
     systematically deny to members of a defendant's race the right
     to participate, as jurors, in the administration of justice;
     if a defendant contends that such systematic or deliberate
     exclusion has taken place, he must prove the following to
     establish a prima facie case: (1) that the group alleged to be
     excluded is a distinctive group in the community; (2) that the
     representation of this group in the venire from which the
     juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to
     the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this
     underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of this
     group in the jury-selection process. 

2.   Jury -- appellant failed to meet his burden of proof -- trial
     court' s denial of appellant's motion to quash was affirmed. -
     -  There is no requirement that the jury which is chosen
     mirror the community and reflect the distinctive groups in the
     population; a defendant does not meet his burden of proof by
     simply showing that the venire is not racially representative
     of the community; here, appellant presented no proof regarding
     the second and third elements necessary to show that
     systematic or deliberate exclusion had taken place; where
     proof of a systematic exclusion of the distinctive group is
     completely lacking, there is no basis for a motion to quash
     the jury panel; where the venire is chosen by computer, using
     the random selection process mandated by Ark. Code Ann.  16-
     32-103, there is no possibility of a purposeful exclusion of
     African-Americans; the trial court's denial of the motion to
     quash was therefore affirmed.

3.   Appeal & error -- record on appeal confined to that which is
     abstracted -- issue not reached. --  The court was unable to
     consider the issue concerning the victim's identification of
     appellant in a photographic lineup where appellant's abstract
     was completely devoid of trial testimony; the record on appeal
     is confined to that which is abstracted; without an abstract
     of the trial proceedings, the court was unable to assess the
     impact of the allegedly tainted photograph on the trial or to
     determine whether prejudice resulted. 


     Appeal from Garland Circuit Court; Tom Smitherman, Judge;
affirmed.
     Ann C. Hill, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice.
July 1, 1996
*ADVREP*SC1*




GARY DUAINE DAVIS,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                    APPELLEE,




CR96-251


APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR94-526CC,
HON. TOM SMITHERMAN, JUDGE,



AFFIRMED.




                BRADLEY D. JESSON, CHIEF JUSTICE


     
     The appellant was convicted of robbery and sentenced to forty
years in prison.  He raises two issues on appeal, neither of which
merit reversal.
     At the beginning of voir dire, the appellant, who is African-
American, observed that none of the forty-two venirepersons
assembled were African-American.  He moved to quash the jury panel. 
The judge denied the motion to quash and entered into the record a
copy of his order that created the master list from which this
panel was drawn.  The order directed the county's circuit clerk and
computer programmer to create a master list of petit jurors
pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  16-32-103(a) (Repl. 1994).  That
statute mandates random selection of prospective jurors from a list
of registered voters. 
     Selection of a jury from a representative cross-section of the
community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to
trial by jury.  The State may not deliberately or systematically
deny to members of a defendant's race the right to participate, as
jurors, in the administration of justice.  Sanders v. State, 300
Ark. 25,