Opinion ID: 1786345
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the court erred in overruling the motion for a mistrial on account of newspaper and radio publicity.

Text: After 12 jurors and an alternate had been seated, a motion for mistrial was made which was heard by the court in chambers. This motion was based on the fact that a Fayetteville newspaper had, on either the same day the trial commenced (Friday, September 27, 1974) or Thursday, September 26, published an article to the effect that a fourth defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge, and a smaller article appearing in a Springdale newspaper was to the same effect. Both mentioned that the trial of the three appellants was commencing today, [3] and mentioned appellants by name, and the Fayetteville newspaper article set out some of the details relative to the arrests. It appears that there had also been radio spots. It is argued that publication of these articles was prejudicial to the rights of appellants, but under the circumstances as shown by the record, we cannot agree. [4] The court very carefully questioned the jurors as to whether they had read the news articles, and all answered in the negative. The court then further addressed the jury as follows: THE COURT: Mr. Carlson, Mrs. Stubblefield, Mrs. Karp, Mrs. Caudle, Mrs. Miller, Mrs. Lewis, Mr. Cheatham, Mrs. Canup, Mrs. Bradshaw, Mr. Barnes, Mrs. Pruitt, Mr. Carter, Mrs. Burgess, I will ask all thirteen (13) of you individually. You have not heard anything today or heard anything yesterday about it by word of mouth or any news media whatsoever? (All answer, `No' and shake their heads negatively.) Of course, a mere reading of a newspaper account of an incident does not, in itself, disqualify a juror since the juror might be able to put aside any opinion formed. Davis v. State, 251 Ark. 771, 475 S.W.2d 155, and Glover v. State, 248 Ark. 1260, 455 S.W.2d 670. But were it otherwise, there still would be no merit in appellants' contention, for here we have every member of the jury stating that they had not read the articles nor heard news comment. Certainly, it cannot be assumed that these jury members prevaricated in answering the court's questions.