Court Opinion

ID: 9846282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:38:43.334843+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:46.608951
License: Public Domain

Hudgins, J.,
concurring.
I fully concur with the conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion, but do not agree with that part of the opinion which holds that the trial court committed error in excluding from jury service Otho T. Kelley. My reasons for this position, are briefly as follows:
All persons charged with a felony are entitled to have a panel of twenty prospective jurors, free from exception. From this panel the Commonowealth is entitled to strike four and the accused four, thereby leaving a jury of twelve to try the issue. The ministerial officers are authorized to draw only twenty-four names from the jury list. It is the duty of the sheriff from this list to summon only twenty prospective jurors. It is a matter of common knowledge that at the majority of the regular terms of the trial courts the sheriff, a ministerial officer, at each term excuses or fails to summon at least four of the twenty-four persons whose names are drawn for jury service. The statute wisely authorizes the trial judge in certain cases to increase the number of persons *677to be summoned as prospective jurors. He may do this in one of two ways: (1) Either in term or in vacation he may authorize the parties charged with the duty of drawing the names of jurors from the list to increase the number to be drawn; or, (2) under the provisions of section 4896, as amended by Acts 1924, chapter 478, page 764, where a sufficient number of jurors, free from exception, cannot be had from those summoned and in attendance, or where the venire facias or panel has been quashed, the judge may select from the jury list and cause to be summoned so many persons as may be necessary to complete the panel of twenty, free from exception, to constitute the jury to try the case.
The record in this case shows that Kelley was one of seven persons summoned excused from jury service, so that more than twenty persons were summoned and in attendance as prospective jurors for the trial of the accused, but the record does not show which method the trial court used in obtaining their attendance. All the record discloses on the subject is contained in the following excerpt.
“Note: When the jury were selected by lot and called to the bar to be examined upon their voir dire, Otho T. Kelley, without challenge by either the attorney for the Commonwealth or attorney for the defendant, was set aside and excused as a juror on the ground that the said Kelley was busy picking tomatoes, the said Otho T. Kelley being a competent juror, free from exception.
“Note: Exception noted by attorneys for the defendant.
“Note: Mr. Carey Milliner excused by reason of the fact that his wife was a second cousin of Dewey Coard. Two other jurors excused by reason of fact that they were opposed to capital punishment.
“The Court: Mr. Matthews, you spoke to me about excusing you, what is the trouble?
“Mr. Matthews: The truth is I have been operated on and don’t feel able to serve.
*678“The Court: You are excused.
“Mr. Mapp: Exception noted.
“Note: * * * Young was excused as a juror on the ground that he lived under two miles from Greenbush.
“The Court: Have any of you gentlemen made up or expressed an opinion as to the merits of this case?
“Mr. Dunham: I have.
“The Court: What is that opinion based on?
“Mr. Dunham: I am well acquainted with the two parties, heard it discussed, naturally interested in the case.
“The Court: What you heard, would that have any effect on your oath as juror?
“Mr. Dunham: I am afraid it would.
“The Court: You are excused.
“Note: Jury sworn.”
The majority opinion holds that Kelley, because he was “picking tomatoes,” was exempt from jury service, but the record fails to disclose that he had claimed this exemption. While the record is not as clear on the point as it might be, it does show that immediately after the accused had plead to the indictment, the court, in the presence of the accused and attorneys, began to examine the prospective jurors in their voir dire. The stenographer reporting the case did not attempt to accurately record all the proceedings, but simply made a note summarizing the conclusion with the reason therefor.
It is a matter of common knowledge that trial judges are reluctant to excuse men regularly summoned for jury service even when the requests are based on substantial grounds. It seems to me that the only reasonable deduction to be drawn from the note relating to the fact that Kelley was excused is that he requested the court to excuse him on the grounds stated. How did the judge know that Kelley was busy picking tomatoes unless he in some way communicated that fact to him? In my opinion the trial court committed no error in excusing this juror.