Court Opinion

ID: 9760049
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:39:28.423942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:07.965828
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I believe the trial court unduly limited cross-examination of witness Thompson. In order to place the issue in proper perspective I set out what I perceive to be the error. The witness and co-defendant had made several prior statements about the crime. The witness admitted that the statements were untrue and the following then took place: Defense: I would like to go through the statement and give the various versions he gave because we know that he was told it couldn’t happen that way and he brought his testimony in conformity with the prosecution theory. State: Mr. McKissic may ask Mr. Thompson if he made each and every statement and once he says he made it go to the next one. But he is not entitled to cross-examine him on these statements. Court: Your objection is well taken. Mr. McKissic you may ask him if he made prior inconsistent statements. He can either admit or deny them but you may not cross-examine on statements he knows to be false. If he says the statement is true you may cross-examine him on it. I do not understand the ruling of the trial court to be in keeping with the law and our prior opinions. We stated in Miller v. State, 269 Ark. 409, 601 S.W.2d 845 (1980): ‘‘ The right of free and unfettered cross-examination of the accuser by the accused is basic to our system of justice.” In Miller we quoted from Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 1152, 143 S.W.2d 190 (1940) in part as follows: ‘‘The right of cross-examination is a substantive right, and a most valuable and important one.” Both Miller and Smith were reversed because of restrictions on cross-examination. The appellant should have full opportunity to test the credibility and trustworthiness of a witness. Rhodes v. State, 276 Ark. 203, 634 S.W.2d 107 (1982); Gustafson v. State, 267 Ark. 278, 590 S.W.2d 853 (1979). Both Rhodes and Gustafson were reversed. We have always reversed before and we should do it again. P. A. Hollingsworth, Justice dissenting. Appellant urges us to oveturn our ruling in Rector v. State, 280 Ark. 385, 659 S.W.2d 168 (1983) because individuals with conscientious objections to the death penalty were excluded from participating in his trial. Appellant asserts that he was denied his rights under the Sixth and Fourteen Amendments to the federal constitution to have his guilt determined by a fair cross-section of the community. I agree and dissent from the majority opinion for this reason. The mandate that a jury be drawn from a fair and representative cross-section of the community is not unique to Arkansas law. Hall v. State, 259 Ark. 815, 537 S.W.2d 155 (1976); Sanford v. Hutto, 394 F. Supp. 1278 (E.D. Ark., 1975), affirmed 523 F.2d 1383 (8th Cir., 1975); Jewell v. Stebbins, 288 F. Supp. 600 (E.D. Ark., 1969). The United States Supreme Court has frequently affirmed this concept. Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 (1940); Thiel v. Southern Pac. Co. 328 U.S. 217 (1946); Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493 (1972). In Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975), the Court held that “the selection of a petit jury from a representative cross-section of the community is an essential component of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.” The right to be tried by a jury drawn fairly from a representative cross-section of the community is critical for a variety of reasons: The purpose of a j ury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power — to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 at 155-156 (1968). A commentator on this issue has stated, “ the absence of a group from petit juries in communities where the group represents a substantial portion of the population may lead to jury decisionmaking based on prejudice rather than reason.” See Note, Limiting the Peremptory Challenge: Representation of Groups on Petit Juries, 86 Yale L.J, 1715, 1730-1731 & N. 69. Community participation in the administration of the criminal law, more over, is not only consistent with our democratic heritage but is also critical to public confidence in the fairness of the criminal justice system. Restricting jury service to only special groups or excluding identifiable segments playing major roles in the community cannot be squared with the constitutional concept of jury trial. Taylor, supra. 419 U.S. at 530-531. I disagree with the statement by the majority in Rector that: a jury system that has served its purpose admirably throughout the nation’s history ought not to be twisted out of shape for the benefit of those persons least entitled to special favors. It has always been the law in Arkansas, except when the punishment is mandatory, that the same jurors who have the responsibility for determining guilt or innocence must also shoulder the burden of fixing the punishment. That is as it should be, for the two questions are necessarily interwoven. It is conceivable that the law has developed in this area to the point that it is permissible for the State to bar jurors with conscientious objections to the death penalty from serving on sentencing juries. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968). My reading of Witherspoon leads me to the conclusion that if further study prove that juries death-qualified by Witherspoon standards were less than neutral with respect to guilt it mandated a two phase trial — one phase to establish guilt and one phase for sentencing. Grigsby v. Mabry, 569 F. Supp. 1273 (1983) requires us to devise the two phase remedy. The empirical evidence in Grigsby that jurors who favor the death penalty are more likely to vote to convict defendants than jurors who oppose capital punishment requires us to adopt a modification of our criminal trial in this area. See Berry, Death Qualification and the “Fireside Induction” 5 UALR L.J. 1 (1982). I would not allow individuals with conscientious objections to the death penalty to be excluded from participating in the liability phase of appellant’s trial. I would reverse for that reason.