Opinion ID: 1874163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Juror Excusal

Text: Prior to voir dire, counsel for Appellant moved for a continuance, or in the alternative a dismissal of the case, because twenty-one potential jurors failed to report for jury service. The trial judge denied the motion, stating that the fifty-three panelists present were sufficient to proceed with trial. Appellant now contends that he was denied a fair and impartial jury because of alleged improprieties in the excusal of missing jurors. Appellant first suggests that the trial judge delegated his responsibility for excusing potential jurors to someone else, possibly a clerk. In Commonwealth v. Nelson, 841 S.W.2d 628, 631 (Ky.1992), this Court held that such a delegation to court administrators constituted a substantial deviation from the juror selection and exemption procedures found in KRS Chapter 29A as well as in the Administrative Procedures of the Court of Justice, Part II. Our perusal of the record, however, reveals nothing to support Appellant's claim that the trial judge, or one of his subordinates, actually excused the twenty-one individuals who failed to appear for jury service. At trial, the trial judge stated that he did not know why the jurors were not present, indicating that the missing venire members were likely no shows who had no prior approval to miss jury duty. Likewise, Appellant's second assertion, that the trial court neglected to issue show cause orders to the missing jurors, also lacks substantiation. While KRS 29A.150(1) states that missing jurors shall be ordered by the court to appear forthwith and show cause for his failure to comply with the summons, we find no evidence that the trial judge disregarded this statutory mandate. These unsupported claims of error correspond almost exactly to those we considered, then rejected, in Grundy v. Commonwealth, 25 S.W.3d 76, 83 (Ky.2000). In Grundy, the defendant failed to offer any proof that the trial court (1) improperly excused jurors, or (2) made no effort to initiate contempt proceedings against missing jurors. Id. at 83-84. We found such naked innuendo insufficient to support a cognizable claim, particularly since a motion, pursuant to RCr 9.34, `raising an irregularity in the selection of the jurors' must have a factual basis. Id. at 84, citing Brodgen v. Commonwealth, 476 S.W.2d 192 (Ky.1972). Lacking supporting facts, Appellant cannot show that he was prejudiced, nor can he demonstrate that the trial court erred in denying his motions for continuance or dismissal. Nothing in the record supports Appellant's claim that a clerk, rather than the trial judge, excused the absent jurors, or that the trial court failed to order these individuals to show cause for their absence. A mere complaint that some members of the venire did not appear for jury duty is insufficient to demonstrate the trial court erred in this matter.