Opinion ID: 1834950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: literacy requirement

Text: In Terrell v. State, 262 So.2d 179 (Miss. 1972), we addressed the predecessor statute to § 13-5-1 (1972), which also required that a prospective juror be able to read and write. We said: With the infinite variety of cases now in our courts and the multitude of written documents entered into evidence, the requirement that a juror be able to read and write is a reasonable and nondiscriminatory regulation which operates equally against all persons tried by juries. No advantage is afforded to the State which is not also afforded to the defendant. This requirement is just as essential to the State's obligation to afford the accused a fair trial as it is to assure a fair trial for the State. State v. Comeaux, 252 La. 481, 211 So.2d 620 (1968). We are acquainted with no authority to the contrary. Id. at 180. The power to prescribe the qualifications for jurors rests with the legislature. State v. Hall, 187 So.2d 861 (Miss. 1966). The legislature has a right to impose reasonable qualifications for jurors when such qualifications do not violate the constitutional rights of accused persons to be tried by an impartial jury. Shows v. State, 267 So.2d 811, 812 (Miss. 1972). Alderman v. Austin, 663 F.2d 558 (5th Cir.1981), argued by Wilson, does not support his contention that requiring jurors to be able to read and write constitutes intentional discrimination against illiterates. Alderman v. Austin involved a Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 521, 88 S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 20 L.Ed.2d 776, 784 (1968), challenge that the defendant had been convicted to death by a jury that was composed of individuals uncommonly willing to condemn a man to die. Neither Alderman nor Witherspoon lend any credence to Wilson's literacy requirement argument. Our holding in Terrell remains intact. The literacy requirements of § 13-5-1 are constitutional.