Court Opinion

ID: 9727261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:28:24.771882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:35.690383
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
Appellant made a Motion to Quash the venire in which he alleged that the jury commissioners illegally and deliberately omitted the names of Negroes in selecting the jury panel in violation of the Indiana statutory procedure set out in I.C. 1971, 33-4-5-2, being Burns § 4-7104, and of appellant’s right to be tried by a jury of his peers as guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Art. 1, § 13 of the Indiana Constitution. The appellant’s prayer for relief was as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully prays the Court for the following relief:
“(a) That the Court forthwith entertain this motion prior to the voir dire herein; and
“ (b) That the Court permit the introduction of testimony in support of the aforesaid allegations; and
“ (c) That the Court grant such other further, proper and complete relief in the premises as justice may require.” (Emphasis added.)
Appellee made no response to this motion and the trial court overruled it without hearing.
The issue is not whether the appellant has alleged facts in his motion which if true would prove a systematic exclusion of Negroes, but whether appellant should have had an opportunity to introduce evidence to show such a systematic exclusion. It is clear that if he could make such a showing it would *273require a reversal in this case. Brewer v. State (1969), 253 Ind. 154, 252 N. E. 2d 429. The trial court refused to even let appellant try to prove his allegations. The fact that Miami County has 36,000 people, 10-12% Negro and no Negroes were on the panel does not by itself prove systematic exclusion but coupled with appellant’s allegation of illegality and his request for a hearing it is sufficient to compel the trial court to at least hold a hearing. This is especially true in light of the fact that the circuit court judge appoints the jury commissioners and instructs them concerning their duties. I.C. 1971, 33-4-5-1, being Burns § 4-7101. When an array is challenged as being deliberately unconstitutional the court should be anxious to show that its instructions to the jury commissioners were lawful and that those commissioners followed the instructions and the statutes. Brewer v. State, supra, (DeBruler, J., dissenting).
Note. — Reported in 274 N. E. 2d 249.