Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dalrymple, 5--5845
| Decision Date | 05 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5845,5--5845 |
| Citation | 480 S.W.2d 955,252 Ark. 771 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Appellant, v. Helen B. DALRYMPLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Thomas B. Keys and James N. Dowell, Little Rock, for appellant.
Tompkins, McKenzie & McRae, Prescott, for appellee.
For reversal of a judgment upon a jury verdict in this eminent domain action, appellant Arkansas State Highway Commission contends that the trial court erred in refusing to strike veniremen Easterling and Rowe for cause and in refusing to permit dirt sales by appellee Helen B. Dalrymple to a highway construction contractor to be offset as special benefits. We find no error.
Appellant's challenge to venireman Easterling was made because the voir dire examination showed that he had an opinion of real estate values in the area and because he knew one of the prospective witnesses. The challenge to venireman Rowe was on the basis that he also knew one of the prospective witnesses. After the challenges were overruled, the panel was completed and each side, pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 39--229 (Repl.1962), struck three names. Appellant struck the names of Easterling, Rowe and one other but made no showing that he would have struck the name of any other juror if he had had a peremptory challenge left. Under such circumstances we hold that appellant has shown no prejudice. See Roark Transportation, Inc. v. West, 188 Ark. 941, 68 S.W.2d 1000 (1934), and Collins v. State, 102 Ark. 180, 143 S.W. 1075 (1912). It has been suggested that perhaps Ark. State Highway Commission v. Young, 241 Ark. 765, 419 S.W.2d 120 (1967), states a contrary rule. We do not so interpret the decision which cited as authority Collins v. State, supra, where the rule was recognized. As was pointed out in Mabry v. State, 50 Ark. 492, 8 S.W. 823 (1888), the right of peremptory challenges is conferred as a means to reject jurors--not to select jurors, and until such time as a party is forced to take an objectionable juror without the privilege of exercising a peremptory challenge, he has shown no prejudice. Green v. State, 223 Ark. 761, 270 S.W.2d 895 (1954). Here, as in the Roark Transportation case, appellant does not contend that any of the jurors who served were disqualified. Consequently appellant has shown no prejudicial error.
There is no merit in appellant's contention that it was entitled to offset fill dirt sales to a highway construction contractor as a special benefit. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodard v. Sargent
...challenges, i.e., actual prejudice, before a refusal to excuse a juror for cause is reversible error. Arkansas Highway Commission v. Dalrymple, 252 Ark. 771, 480 S.W.2d 955 (1972); Kirk v. State, 270 Ark. 983, 986, 606 S.W.2d 755 XII. THE PETITIONER'S RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL WAS VIOLATED BECA......
-
Poet v. Traverse City Osteopathic Hosp.
...to accept an objectionable juror--one which the party otherwise would have peremptorily challenged; Arkansas State Hwy. Comm. v. Dalrymple, 252 Ark. 771, 772, 480 S.W.2d 955 (1972) ( [A]ppellant "made no showing that he would have struck the name of any other juror if he had had a peremptor......
-
Goodwin v. Harrison, 89-76
...prejudice resulting from the defense's alleged misconduct in jury selection, as she is required to do. In Arkansas State Hwy. Comm'n v. Dalrymple, 252 Ark. 771, 480 S.W.2d 955 (1972), we [T]he right of peremptory challenges is conferred as a means to reject jurors--not to select jurors, and......
-
Rickett v. Hayes
...some objectionable or disqualified juror without the privilege of exercising a peremptory challenge. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dalrymple, 252 Ark. 771, 480 S.W.2d 955. No juror who was challenged for cause served on the jury and it is not shown that appellant would have otherwise......