Court Opinion

ID: 9540744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:19:33.275735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:16.175273
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
As pointed out by the majority opinion, appellant Sharp and one James Brown were jointly tried and found guilty of this robbery. Brown’s conviction was affirmed by this Court in Brown v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 82, 360 N.E.2d 830. In that appeal, Justice Prentice and I voted to reverse because the trial judge had abused his discretion in excusing 750 of 1000 jurors named by the jury commissioners simply upon request, and without any requirement that they show inconvenience or hardship. The trial judge should have a wide range of discretion to grant excuses to individual jurors for just cause, but no such cause or reasonable basis justifies the type of wholesale excuse granted by the trial court here. This procedure also should not be tolerated because it resulted in the concentration of a particular attitude in the remaining jury group, namely, a willingness and eagerness to serve as a juror in a felony criminal court; and served to exclude a large group of qualified jurors, namely, the working poor who would have in all likelihood opted out of jury service rather than put up with the loss of wages or the displeasure of their employers.
*202Prentice, J., concurs.
Note. — Reported at 369 N.E.2d 408.