Opinion ID: 1747978
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Improper or Inadequate Reasons for Excluding Some Venirepersons

Text: Appellant also complains that the circuit clerk and presiding judge would routinely remove names from the 750-person qualified juror lists for improper or inadequate reasons. He argues that the circuit clerk would improperly remove people known to be ill, or who had a doctor's appointment, or who were believed to be out of town or working on the Mississippi River for extended periods of time, or who for any number of reasons cannot serve during that term. Review of the record shows little support for this claim. Instead, it shows that the clerk typically removed only the names of people who were statutorily ineligible for service under section 494.425 due to factors such as age, nonresidency, felony convictions, or being a licensed attorney. Each potential juror received a summons, a questionnaire and a letter from the court. If the questionnaire was returned with reasons why a person should be excused from service due to a hardship listed in section 494.430, the presiding judge then made a determination as to whether the individual should be excused. [3] The trial court only excused people eligible to be excused. Appellant nonetheless contends the evidence shows that, in some instances, the clerk not only removed people who were statutorily ineligible, but also some who were not, such as individuals known to be gone on an extended vacation or working for extended periods of time on the river. To the extent that the record may arguably support this contention, no substantial failure to comply with the underlying statutory policy and provisions embodied by Chapter 494 occurred in Appellant's case. Only a substantial failure to comply with the statutory jury selection requirements would entitle Appellant to relief. Section 494.465.1. In this context, we hold that a substantial failure to comply is one that either rises to the level of a constitutional violation, and/or that actually prejudices a defendant. [4] For reasons already discussed, the jury selection procedures employed in Appellant's case did not violate his constitutional rights. As to prejudice, Appellant has not shown that any individual was actually improperly excused in his case. By the same token, Appellant also has not shown that he was in any way prejudiced by some isolated and minor technical violations that might possibly have occurred if the clerk, for example, removed some venirepersons who were thought to be away on vacation. The exclusion of a prospective juror for reasons not listed in the statute is not grounds for reversal absent a showing that a defendant was actually prejudiced by failure to strictly observe the statutory provisions for excuse. State v. Gilmore, 661 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Mo. banc 1983); see also State v. Cross, 887 S.W.2d 789, 791-92 (Mo.App. 1994).