Opinion ID: 1671742
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the jury was sworn prior to hearing the case, deliberating and rendering a verdict.

Text: ¶ 35. McFarland argues that the jury in this case was never sworn and thus a reversal is required. He points out that the record does not reflect that the trial judge administered the required oath to the jurors after they were selected and before opening statements. We find this assignment of error to be without merit. ¶ 36. In the armed robbery case of Young v. State, 425 So.2d 1022, 1025 (Miss. 1983), the defendant argued on appeal that because the record did not reflect that the jury was specially sworn to try the issues at the outset of the trial, the trial court committed reversible error. We noted that although the beginning of the record did not indicate whether the jury was specially sworn, the first part of the judgment so reflected. Young, 425 So.2d at 1025. We declined to reverse, stating that the presumption is that the trial judge properly performed his duties and that this rebuttable presumption has not been overcome. Id. (quoting Bell v. State, 360 So.2d 1206, 1215 (Miss. 1978)). ¶ 37. In the case sub judice, in his objection to a defense motion raised after the jury was selected and released for lunch, the prosecutor stated, without challenge by the defense, that the jury has been sworn and impaneled. Furthermore, the first parts both of the Judgment of Conviction and of the Judgment state that the jury was duly sworn before hearing the evidence and arguments. We find that McFarland has failed to overcome the presumption that the jury was properly sworn.