Court Opinion

ID: 9607786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:02:01.557339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:40.429878
License: Public Domain

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that it is an essential and substantial violation of the law for a person who was not selected to serve on a grand jury and that when such an error occurs and the matter is timely raised, a new indictment is mandated. In this case, Harper moved to quash the indictment on the basis that William A. Conner, Junior (“Junior”) was selected to serve but the person who actually served on the grand jury was Junior’s father, William A. Conner, Senior (“Senior”). The majority chooses not to reverse the trial court’s *108denial of Harper’s motion but instead vacates and remands the case for the trial court to “find” whether Junior or Senior was the person actually selected to serve.
Decided February 11, 2008.
Christopher W. Adams, Ottrell L. Ferrell, Cox, Byington, Corwin, Neidrach, Smith & Twyman, Christopher P. Huy man, JoshD. Moore, for appellant.
Leigh E. Patterson, District Attorney, NataleeL. Staats, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Susan V. Boleyn, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
In its order, the trial court stated:
It is not clear whether the juror which the jury commission intended to serve in this matter was correctly identified by date of birth (and thus Junior) or by address (and thus Senior). The jury manager accepted the fact that Junior should have been the juror to serve and the Court issues its ruling as if that was the correct set of facts.
While the majority may be technically correct that the trial court did not expressly find that Senior was the wrong grand juror, it is also apparent from the trial court’s ruling that the jury manager is the individual responsible for ascertaining the correct identities of persons selected for the grand jury and that the trial court credited the jury manager’s conclusion. Under these circumstances, I see no reason to vacate and remand this case where the foregone conclusion is that Harper’s motion to quash should be granted. Thus, I respectfully dissent to the majority’s refusal to reverse the trial court’s ruling.