Glover v. State, 5479
Citation | 455 S.W.2d 670,248 Ark. 1260 |
Decision Date | 29 June 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 5479,5479 |
Parties | Clyde Ray GLOVER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Mike Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Clyde Ray Glover was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death for the alleged killing of Judy Evans. The gruesome facts, as related by an accomplice and as told by appellant to his own sixteen year old son, will not be reiterated because the evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict. In fact the sufficiency of the evidence is recognized in appellant's brief as follows:
For reversal appellant relies upon the following points:
I. 'The court erred in refusing to quash the search warrant issued on March 5, 1969, and in refusing to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to such search warrant.
II. The court erred in overruling appellant's challenges for cause to talesmen Ralph Shoe, Glenn T. Boyd, Wayne L. Brietewell and Alvin Jackson White.
III. The court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to prove on cross-examination of the state witness Peggy Pitcher that said witness had been told that the defendant and her husband had been double-dating.
IV. The court erred in commenting on the weight of the evidence by stating in effect in the presence of the jury that there was no testimony justifying the inference that witness Leorn Pitcher had assaulted the decedent with an intent to kill her.
V. The court erred in allowing the accomplice Latham to testify that after the crime he showed the officers the place where a ring, allegedly taken from the finger of the decedent, was buried and that the officers recovered the ring at the place pointed out by the witness.
VI. The court erred in allowing Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Howard Mayes to comment on defendant's failure to take the witness stand.
VII. The court erred in refusing to give defendant's requested Instruction No. 1.'
Because we are reversing the judgment for failure of the trial court to excuse from the jury talesmen Ralph Shoe, Glenn T. Boyd, Wayne L. Britewell and Alvin Jackson White we do not discuss Points IV and VI. They are not likely to arise on a new trial.
The record, with respect to talesmen Shoe, Boyd, Britewell and Jackson, is as follows:
Juror Ralph Shoe when interrogated by the court stated:
'I just formed my own opinion. A witness could come on the stand and change everything. I formed an opinion from what I read about it and heard talked about it. As I say, a witness could change it all around. I would disregard whatever opinions I have formed in the past and base my verdict simply and strictly on the evidence given and the law given without regard to any opinions When interrogated by defendant's counsel the juror stated:
which I may have previously held. I did not talk to any body who purported to be a witness.'
* * *'
Juror Glenn T. Boyd when questioned by the court said that he had formed an opinion and that he realized whatever he read in the paper was hearsay and if selected as a juror he would disregard it and try the appellant on the evidence he heard in court. But when interrogated by defendant's counsel, he said:
Juror Wayne L. Britewell testified as follows:
Interrogation by court:
'I recall reading about the death of the decedent. It is a little hard not to form an opinion. Regardless of the opinions I have formed and regardless of whether what I may have read or heard is true, I would try it on the evidence I hear in court to the best of my ability. I would set these opinions aside.
Interrogation by appellant's counsel:
'In answering Judge Light, I stated that what I had read and heard was the only evidence I had, that I believe that I was supposed to go by the evidence. Until such time as I did hear evidence in this case, I would entertain my present opinion.
Interrogation by court:
'The opinions I have formed were arrived at either from hearing about it from other people who did not purport to be witnesses or from what I read in the paper. This is an opinion which I could readily disregard. I would readily disregard such an opinion and base my verdict wholly and solely on the evidence in the case.
Interrogation by counsel:
'It would take some evidence to remove my present opinion.'
Juror Alvin Jackson White after interrogation by the court finally stated to appellant's counsel:
'Although I have indicated an answer to his Honor's questions that I am perfectly willing to set aside my present opinions to the best of my ability and try the case on the law and the evidence, it would take evidence to remove that opinion and I would keep that opinion until I heard evidence to the contrary.'
Both the U.S. Constitution, Amendment No. 6, and the Arkansas Constitution, Art. 2, § 10, guarantee the accused in all criminal prosecutions trial 'by impartial jury'. In a case involving a sensational killing and newspaper publicity it is almost impossible to find an informed citizen to serve on the jury who has not heard about the case and who has not formed some opinion based upon the newspaper accounts. In such cases it is the duty of the trial court to determine whether an opinion has been formed and whether the jurors can lay aside such opinion and give to the accused the benefit of all doubts that the law requires while trying him on the law and the evidence given to them during the trial. When a venireman states
that he can lay aside such preconceived opinions and give to the accused the benefit of the doubts to which he is entitled under law, it is generally conceded that the venireman qualifies as 'impartial' under the constitutional requirements. See Rowe v. State, 224 Ark. 671, 275 S.W.2d 887 (1955), where we said:
In Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961), the U.S. Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Tom Clark, discussed the 'impartial' juror requirement in this language:
'* * * In essence, the right to jury trial guarantees to the criminally accused a fair trial by a panel of impartial, 'indifferent' jurors. The failure to accord an accused a fair hearing violates even the minimal standards of due process. Re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 68 S.Ct. 499, 92 L.Ed. 682; Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749, 50 A.L.R. 1243. 'A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.' Re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942, 946. In the ultimate analysis, only the jury can strip a man of his liberty or his life. In the language of Lord Coke, a juror must be as 'indifferent as he stands unsworne.' Co.Litt. 155b. His verdict must be based upon the evidence developed at the trial. Cf. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654. This is true, regardless of the heinousness of the crime charged, the apparent guilt of the offender or the station in life which he occupies. It was so written into our law as early as 1807 by Chief Justice Marshall in 1 Burr's Trial 416 (1807). 'The theory of the law is that a juror who has formed an opinion cannot be impartial.' Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 155, 25 L.Ed. 244, 246.
It is not required, however, that the jurors be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved. In these days of swift, widespread and diverse methods of communication, an important case can be expected to arouse the interest of the public in the vicinity, and scarcely any of those best qualified to serve as jurors will not have formed some impression or opinion as to the merits of the case. This is particularly true in criminal cases. To hold that the mere existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of a prospective juror's impartiality would be to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Beed v. State
... ... 2, § 10, Constitution of Arkansas. See Swindler v. State, supra; Glover v. State, 248 Ark. 1260, 455 S.W.2d 670. In Swindler, we found abuse of the trial court's discretion in not sustaining a challenge for cause to a ... ...
- Koch v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 5-5294
-
Scherrer v. State
... ... Glover v. State, 248 Ark. 1260, 455 S.W.2d 670 (1970). A defendant is not entitled to a trial before jurors completely ignorant of the alleged crime ... ...
-
Flaherty v. State
... ... United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); U.S. v. McClard, 333 F.Supp. 158 (E.D.Ark.1971); Glover v. State, 248 Ark. 1260, 455 S.W.2d 670 (1970) ... The authorities, as succinctly reviewed in McClard, supra, are also to the effect ... ...