Court Opinion

ID: 9642313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:54:33.041265+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:52:33.002725
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. I dissent from this Court’s conclusion that Mrs. Hood was untruthful in her answers to questions on voir dire. The correctness of Mrs. Hood’s answers is undisputed. Mrs. Hood correctly stated that she had no personal knowledge of the case, that she had not heard anyone discuss the case out in the community, and that she knew of nothing running through her mind that would affect her ability to be a fair and impartial juror. The majority has no other basis on which to reverse this case other than the fact that Mrs. Hood had heard some bits of the testimony on the first trial of the case. This is not a sufficient reason for disqualification of a juror. Holland v. State, 260 Ark. 617, 542 S.W.2d 761 (1976). The trial judge heard the voir dire of Mrs. Hood and concluded that she was not evasive in her answers. The record reflects that she answered each question accurately. The trial judge’s conclusion that she was not evasive is not only not clearly erroneous but is clearly correct. I would affirm this case.