Clark v. State, CR--75--47
| Decision Date | 08 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. CR--75--47,CR--75--47 |
| Citation | 258 Ark. 490,527 S.W.2d 619 |
| Parties | Robert CLARK, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Kenneth C. Coffelt, Little Rock, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen. by Bill D. Etter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant Robert Clark was convicted on two counts of delivering a controlled substance (marijuana). For reversal he contends among other things that the trial court erred in not directing a verdict in his favor and in the manner of selecting the jury.
We find the evidence sufficient to sustain the conviction. Appellant's defense was entrapment, and a fact question was raised as to whether he did what he was already willing and ready to do or whether the criminal design originated with the undercover officer.
The trial court had available for purposes of this trial a panel of 27 petit jurors. Prior to the trial the trial court had required all of the petit jurors to fill out a written questionnaire which contained such information as the juror's name and address, his spouse's name, the occupation of both the juror and his spouse and whether the juror had been a complaining witness in a criminal proceeding. The questionnaires were filled out under oath and were available to the lawyers in attendance upon the court at least one full workday before the trial. During the voir dire, the trial court would not permit appellant's counsel to go over these same questions with the jurors. However, the trial court did permit and expect appellant's counsel to ask other questions of each petit juror during the voir dire. From the panel of 27 petit jurors the trial court caused 12 jurors to be drawn and seated. Each juror was then examined by the State and then by the appellant. However, under the procedure used by the trial court all twelve jurors had to be examined before any peremptory challenges were permitted, and following the examination of the 12 jurors, the State then had to exercise its peremptory challenges and then appellant was required to make his challenges. After a juror was once accepted, the trial court would not permit a peremptory challenge to be exercised against such juror. After some of the original 12 jurors called had been stricken by peremptory challenges, the trial court would cause additional jurors to be called to make a total of 12. This procedure was continued until 12 jurors had been selected. Appellant attacks the jury selection as hereinafter set out.
First: Appellant contends that he was denied a full drawn panel of 24 jurors. We find no merit in this contention. The statute, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 39--216 (Repl.1962), upon which appellant relies as requiring a panel of 24 jurors has been repealed by Acts of 1969, No. 568. The number of jurors to be selected for the panel is left to the discretion of the Circuit Judge. See, Ark.Stat.Ann. § 39--209 (Supp.1973).
Second: We find no merit to appellant's contention that the trial court erred in not permitting him to ask again the simple questions that had been answered on the jury questionnaire. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 39--226 (Repl.1962), provides:
We note that the record shows that appellant's counsel was permitted to examine each juror extensively enough to make any challenges for cause or peremptorily and also to sufficiently familiarize himself with any communication problems that a juror might have.
Third: Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not requiring the State to first accept or reject each juror as he was examined. The statute involved, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford v. State, CR
...the courthouse would be adequate for this purpose, the court exercised its discretion in rejecting this suggestion. In Clark v. State, 258 Ark. 490, 527 S.W.2d 619 (1975), we held it reversible error to require a defendant to examine all of the jurors drawn from the panel each time before t......
-
Vowell v. State
...this point, the appellant claiming those decisions require reversal, and the appellee seeking to distinguish them. In Clark v. State, 258 Ark. 490, 527 S.W.2d 619 (1975), the trial court required examination of all twelve jurors by both parties before any peremptory challenges were permitte......
-
Leeper v. State, CR78-91
...believe them) there was no entrapment. The question was one of fact. See Peters v. State, 248 Ark. 134, 450 S.W.2d 276; Clark v. State, 258 Ark. 490, 527 S.W.2d 619. It was resolved against In considering the question presented, it must be remembered that appellant bore the burden of provin......
-
Conley v. State, CR
...Jeffries and Nail are not in conflict. The appellant cites one other case in support of his argument, and that is Clark v. State, 258 Ark. 490, 527 S.W.2d 619 (1975). However, Clark repeats the exact situation as was found in Appellant also challenges the state's method of exercising its pe......