Cochran v. State, 5799
| Decision Date | 25 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 5799,5799 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Frank COCHRAN, Jr., and Theodis Cochran, Appellants, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
Walker, Kaplan & Mays, P.A., by A. T. Goodloe, Little Rock, for appellants.
Jim Guy Tucker, Atty. Gen., by James W. Atkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Frank Cochran, Jr. and Theodis Cochran were convicted of assaulting an officer during an assemblage or a riot in violation of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41--2802.1 (Supp.1973). On appeal they contend, among other things, that the trial court unduly restricted their voir dire of the venire.
The record shows that Officer Clarence Edward Kennedy of the Forrest City Police Department was struck and injured in the performance of his duties when investigating a disturbance in a black neighborhood. There were at least twelve persons involved in the assault. Following the attack upon Officer Kennedy appellants were arrested along with Curtis Cochran and Frank Cochran, Sr. Later in the day all four Cochrans were allegedly assaulted by a group of white people at the jail house when they were released on bond.
When the names of the jurors were called the trial court asked them as a group: 'Would the fact that the Defendants are members of the black race and that the officer is a member of the white race tend to influence your verdict or tend to prejudice you either for or aginst the defendants in this case?' Having received no response, the trial court accepted their silence as a response that those facts would not influence their verdicts. Thereafter, the trial court would not permit appellants' counsel to question the prospective jurors on voir dire with reference to racial prejudice. The trial court also refused to permit counsel to question the prospective jurors as to whether they knew anyone who participated in the incident at the jail-house or had any information about the incident.
In Griffin v. State, 239 Ark. 431, 433, 389 S.W.2d 900, 902 (1965), we pointed out that wide latitude is allowed counsel in examining jurors on their voir dire and that such examination should not be limited to only that which might disqualify because such an inquiry also serves the purpose of determining whether counsel should exercise a peremptory challenge. In that connection we pointed out that in many instances 'counsel decides whether to use a peremptory challenge not so much on what a venireman may say, but on how he says it.'
Of course as pointed out in Ham v. South Carolina, 409 U.S. 524, 93 S.Ct. 848, 35 L.Ed.2d 46 (1973), appellants had a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment to voir dire the jurors upon the subject of racial prejudice.
In holding that the trial court abused its discretion in unduly restricting the voir dire of the jurors, however, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Ristaino, 74-1222
...any black criminal defendant, target or not, who requests a specific inquiry about racial prejudice is entitled to it. Cochran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 520 (Ark. 1974) (prosecution for assaulting an officer during an assemblage or riot); McNichols v. State, 279 So.2d 377 (Fla.App.1973) (state c......
-
State v. Long
...he cites United States v. Robinson, 485 F.2d 1157 (3 Cir. 1973); United States v. Booker, 480 F.2d 1310 (7 Cir. 1973); Cochran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 520 (Ark.Sup.Ct.1974); McNichols v. State, 279 So.2d 377 (Fla.D.Ct.App.1973); Reid v. State, 129 Ga.App. 657, 200 S.E.2d 454 (App.Ct.1973); Peo......
-
U.S. v. Bear Runner
...such as that employed by the court here was recently looked upon with disapproval by the Supreme Court of Arkansas in Cochran v. State, 505 S.W.2d 520 (Ark.1974) where that court '. . . All trial lawyers, and all students of the science of jurisprudence, know that general questions directed......
-
People v. Harrell
...decides whether to use a peremptory challenge not so much on what a venireman may say, but on how he says it." Cochran v. State, 256 Ark. 99, 505 S.W.2d 520, 521 (1974): "* * * All trial lawyers, and all students of the science of jurisprudence, know that General questions directed to the j......