Corbin v. Com.
Decision Date | 28 May 2002 |
Docket Number | Record No. 1503-01-2. |
Citation | 38 Va. App. 348,564 S.E.2d 147 |
Parties | Harold Vincent CORBIN v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
Gordon A. Wilkins (Charles J. McKerns; Wilkins & Davison; McKerns & Hill, on brief), Warsaw, for appellant.
Margaret W. Reed, Assistant Attorney General (Jerry W. Kilgore, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: BENTON and WILLIS, JJ., and HODGES, Senior Judge.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the trial judge erred in denying Harold Vincent Corbin's motion to strike the master jury list. We affirm the trial judge's order.
A grand jury indicted Corbin for capital murder, robbery, and attempted capital murder. In a pre-trial motion to strike the master jury list, Corbin alleged that the jury commissioners did not prepare the master jury list consistent with the requirements of Code § 8.01-345. In particular, he alleged that although the statute indicates the Essex County jury commissioners improperly compiled the master jury list "solely by using the voter registration list."
At a hearing held to consider the motion, Corbin's attorney presented no witnesses. The parties stipulated that 9,300 people reside in Essex County, that 5,517 people are registered to vote in the county, and that 1,656 of the county's residents are school children. Corbin's attorney asserted in argument that the jury commissioners prepared the master jury list from the voter registration list only and that the statute's use of "where feasible" imposes a mandatory requirement to use a variety of other lists in addition to the voter registration list.
The Commonwealth's Attorney argued that the issue turned upon the meaning of "feasible." He argued that the voter registration list contained a high percentage of the residents, that the voter registration list was a reliable and "sufficient random process" from which to select a master jury list, and that using other lists involved "a huge process which is difficult."
The trial judge's findings included the following:
Thus, the trial judge denied the motion. After a jury convicted Corbin of first degree murder, robbery, and attempted first degree murder, Corbin filed this appeal.
Corbin contends that it was "feasible" for the jury commissioners to use, in addition to the voter registration list, the other lists mentioned in the statute. The Commonwealth contends that the issue of feasibility poses a factual question and that Corbin failed to present evidence that the jury commissioners did not follow the statute. We agree with the Commonwealth.
In pertinent part, the statute provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial