Court Opinion

ID: 7817983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:43:13.409815+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:28:50.661672
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice. Roy Wells, appellant herein, was charged with the crime of Murder in the First Degree, and the Garland County Circuit Court appointed counsel for Wells shortly after his arrest. A plea of not guilty was entered, and on the morning of the trial date, these attorneys learned that fourteen members of the regular petit jury panel had not been called as prospective jurors, the court having instructed the clerk not to call the regular members of the petit jury panel who served as jurors in the case of the State v. Tollett, a first degree murder case, which had been tried approximately one week prior to the date set for the trial of Wells. After the jury was impaneled, but prior to the commencement of the trial, a conference between court and counsel was held in chambers, the court advising that this action had been taken because of the fact that three of the fourteen jurors (two alternates being included) who heard the Tollett case, had expressed an opinion to the court after the trial of that case, indicating that a different verdict might have been arrived at if the case had been tried again. Tollett had received a two year sentence for voluntary manslaughter, and the court received the definite impression that these jurors meant, if the case had been subsequently tried, they would have given Tollett considerably more time. The trial judge stated that the Wells case was similar to the Tollett case, and that the court’s action had been taken as a precautionary effort to see that Wells received a fair and impartial trial. Counsel for the defense then objected to the refusal of the court to call the members of the regular panel who had served on that case, stating the ground of objection as follows: “On the ground that such an arbitrary exclusion would deny the defendant his rights under the law and deny him access to the right to have those persons who sat on the case of State vs. Tollett as jurors in the defendant’s present case about to be tried.” The motion was denied, defense counsel noting their exceptions to the ruling. On trial, Wells received a sentence of twenty-one years. The alleged error was brought forth in the motion for new trial, and after that motion was overruled by the court, an appeal was granted. Only one point is relied upon for reversal, viz: “The court committed prejudicial and reversible error in arbitrarily advising the clerk of the court not to summons any of the jurors or alternates who had sat as jurors in the case of State vs. Tollett tried approximately one week prior to the present case.” It might be stated that there is no contention on the part of appellant that the fourteen regular jurors were excused because of any bias or prejudice on the part of the court, the good faith of the court not being questioned ; nor is it asserted that any biased juror sat on the case. It is simply argued that the action of the trial court Avas beyond its power or jurisdiction, and that the defendant had the right to accept or challenge, either for cause or by peremptory challenge, any or all of the regular members of the jury selected by the jury commission. We do not agree. The statutes providing for the selection of jurors and relied upon by appellant, Ark. Ktat. Ann. § 39-216 through § 39-223 (Repl. 1962), contain no language consistent Avith appellant’s argument.1 There is no absolute right entitling a defendant to accept or reject individual jurors from the total regular panel. This is shown by our decisions in Pate v. State, 152 Ark. 553, 239 S. W. 27, and Hallum v. Blackford, 202 Ark. 544, 151 S. W. 2d 82, and cases cited therein. The holding in those cases (and the cases they cite) was that the court did not abuse its discretion in not making-available all of the members of the regular panel. Appellant’s answer to those cases is, in effect, that justification was shown for the court’s action, while in the case before us, the action of the court was arbitrarily taken. We need not reach that question in disposing of this litigation. In Trotter and Harris v. State, 237 Ark. 820, 377 S. W. 2d 14, this court pointed out that we had many times held that an accused did not have the right to the services of any particular juror, and that a defendant is not in a position to complain of the composition of the jury if he did not exhaust his peremptory challenges. We said: “Under Arkansas law [Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-1922 (1947)], a defendant in a capital case is given twelve peremptory challenges, and, in the instant case, appellants only used eight peremptory challenges. Throughout the years, no rule of procedure has been more consistently adhered to than the rule that a defendant cannot complain of the composition of the jury if he does not exhaust his challenges. In Benton v. State, 30 Ark. 32, decided in 1875, Chief Justice English pointed out that this rule had stood as a precept of criminal practice in this state, for a period of over 22 years. In a long line of cases, we have consistently upheld the rule to the present time. A cursory examination of our cases reveals over thirty-five criminal cases in which this rule has been cited and adhered to. [Citing cases.]” Admittedly, appellant did not exhaust all of his peremptory challenges. He is thus in no position to raise the question which he endeavors to present on this appeal. Because the peremptory challenges were not exhausted, we do not reach the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to summons the fourteen members of the regular panel who had previously been excused by the court. Affirmed. Byrd, J. dissents.  Actually, appellant was provided with a full panel of twenty-four regular jurors, the record reflecting that a special panel had been called and sworn at the Tollett trial. This panel then became a part of the regular panel.