Bass v. State, F-84-380
Decision Date | 25 February 1987 |
Docket Number | No. F-84-380,F-84-380 |
Citation | 733 P.2d 1340,1987 OK CR 29 |
Parties | Norman Calvin BASS Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee. |
Court | United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma |
Norman Calvin Bass, Jr., was convicted in the District Court of Cleveland County, Case No. CRF-83-54 for the offense of Robbery by Fear. He was sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment. We reverse the judgment and sentence of the District Court.
Our reversal of this conviction is predicated on appellant's first assignment of error, in which he contends that the jury selection in this case was improper and denied him the right to be tried by a fair and impartial jury. The facts relating to this issue are as follows: Durinq voir dire, a list of the State's witnesses was read from the Information, and defense counsel asked veniremen whether they knew any of the person on that list. The panel, including veniremen Christopher Kelsey, gave a negative response. After the jury was selected, sworn, and following opening statement Kelsey realized he did know one of the witnesses, and made the following statement to the Court:
Immediately following this unfortunate occurrence, defense counsel moved for a mistrial, which was denied.
Appellant raises two arguments in support of this assignment of error. First, he claims the trial court erred in refusing to excuse the juror for cause pursuant to 22 O.S.1981, §§ 653 and 659. Second, he claims that the procedure in this case deprived him the right to intelligently exercise his peremptory challenges to the venireman, and thus denied him a fair trial. See Tibbetts v. State, 698 P.2d 942 (Okl.Cr.1985).
We reject appellant's first theory. Regarding challenges for cause, as defined by 22 O.S.1981, § 659, we have repeatedly held that the qualification of a juror is a question to be addressed by the trial court in the exercise of its sound discretion. See Murphy v. State, 72 Okl.Cr. 1, 112 P.2d 438 (1941). See also Bewley v. State, 695 P.2d 1357 (Okl.Cr.1985). In a case such as this, in which the juror stated that, though acquainted with the witness, it would not effect his ability to be fair and impartial, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to excuse the juror for cause. Cf. Saugstad v. State, 642 P.2d 616 (Okl.Cr.1982).
However, we agree with appellant's second theory. Part and parcel of the jury selection process is the right of either party to exercise a peremptory challenge. 22 O.S.1981, § 654. This challenge is one "for which no reason need be given, but upon which the court must excuse him." Id. See, e.g., Lee v. State, 637 P.2d 879 (Okl.Cr.1981). Depriving counsel of information that could lead to the intelligent exercise of a peremptory challenge is a denial of an appellant's right to a fair and impartial jury. Tibbetts v. State, 698 P.2d at 946-47. We feel that our statement in Manuel v. State, 541 P.2d 233, 236-7 (Okl.Cr.1975), adequately addresses our position on this issue:
[W]e are of the opinion that the nonfeasance of at least the veniremen and most probably the prosecution in failing to inform the defense counsel of the situation was not commensurate with principles of fundamental fairness. We recognize that in other voir dire examination Mr. Cunningham indicated that he was of the opinion that he could sit as a fair and impartial juror, and that the record before us does not establish that he failed to do so. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brown v. State
...because a juror may be acquainted with a witness if the juror says it would not affect his ability to be impartial. Bass v. State, 733 P.2d 1340, 1341 (Okl.Cr.1987). Nor is it an abuse of discretion to leave on a juror who has read something about the incident in question, so long as the ju......
-
Underwood v. State
...against the defendant's sister, who turned out to be a key alibi witness, warranted a new trial. Perez Enriquez cites Bass v. State, 1987 OK CR 29, 733 P.2d 1340, for the proposition that “[d]epriving defense counsel of information that could lead to the intelligent use of a peremptory chal......
-
Grissom v. State
...his last remaining peremptory challenge.Id. (internal citations omitted). ¶ 17 Perez Enriquez cited earlier opinions in Bass v. State, 1987 OK CR 29, 733 P.2d 1340, and Tibbetts v. State, 1985 OK CR 43, 698 P.2d 942. In Bass, after the jury was selected and sworn, a juror revealed that the ......
-
Nickell v. State
...notions. As noted above, the record does not include a transcript of that interview, only the judge's recollection. In Bass v. State, 733 P.2d 1340, 1341 (Okl.Cr.1987), this Court held, "the qualification of a juror is a question to be addressed by the trial court in the exercise of its sou......