Pearson v. State
Decision Date | 06 June 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 706,706 |
Citation | 15 Md.App. 462,291 A.2d 167 |
Parties | State PEARSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
James J. White, III, Chestertown, for appellant.
David B. Allen, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Richard R. Cooper, State's Atty., for Kent County, on the brief, for appellee.
Argued before MORTON, MOYLAN and GILBERT, JJ.
This appeal involves the right to chalenge peremptorily prospective jurors. Such right has been conferred upon an accused and the State by the common law, case law, statute and rule of court.
Art. 51, § 15 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1968 Repl. Vol.) provides:
The net result of § 15, supra, when read in conjunction with Rule 746, is to allocate, in criminal cases, four peremptory challenges to each of the parties (if there be more than one defendant the defense shall only be entitled to four peremptory challenges, collectively, unless the interest of each defendant is adverse or hostile to the other), except in those criminal trials where the offense charged is punishable by death or confinement in the penitentiary for twenty years or more.
Rule 746, entitled 'Challenge-Peremptory' provides in pertinent part:
'a. Number.
1. Cases Involving Death, Life Imprisonment or Twenty Years or More.
In a trial in which the defendant is subject, on any single count, to a sentence of death, life imprisonment or twenty years or more of imprisonment, except for common law offenses for which no specific penalty is provided by statute, each defendant shall be permitted twenty peremptory challenges and the State shall be permitted ten peremptory challenges for each defendant.
'c. When Made.
A peremptory challenge may be exercised as a matter of right until the time that the jury is sworn.'
The Court of Appeals in Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 462, 464 (1881), speaking through Chief Judge Bartol, quoted with approval from I Ch. Crim.L. 534 m., wherein it is said:
'Peremptory challenges are those which are made to the juror, without assigning any reason, and which the courts are bound to respect.'
The court then quoted from Proffat on Jury Trials, sec. 155, which states:
In this state, the right to peremptory challenges was first secured to a prisoner charged with capital offenses only. 1 By the Acts of 1841, ch. 162 (December session), the right of peremptory challenge was extended to every person indicted for any crime or misdemeanor, the punishment for which was confinement in the penitentiary. 2
The Supreme Court in Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759 (1965), speaking through Mr. Justice White, said:
See also Harrison v. United States, 163 U.S. 140, 16 S.Ct. 961, 41 L.Ed. 104 (1896); Johnson v. State, 9 Md.App. 143, 150, 262 A.2d 792 (1970).
The peremptory challenge is ofttimes utilized to exclude prospective jurors for what would normally appear to be totally irrelevant reasons if sought to be used as a basis to challenge for cause. Thus counsel may for visceral reasons peremptorily challenge because of race, creed, color, nationality, occupation, age, sex, and affiliations, inter alia. Swain v. Alabama, supra; Johnson v. State, supra.
In the instant case, Steve Pearson, appellant, was indicted by the Grand Jury for Kent County, in a single indictment charging the following counts: (1) common law assault upon one Bernard Francis O'Grady; (2) robbery, (Art. 27, § 486); (3) unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, (Art. 27, § 349); (4) conspiracy to commit robbery, (Art. 27, § 38); (5) burglary, (Art. 27, § 29); (6) rogue and vagabond, (Art. 27, § 490); (7) larceny of goods valued at $100 or more, (Art. 27, § 340); (8) receiving stolen goods, (Art. 27, § 466).
When the case was called for trial, the State entered a nol pros as to Count 2, robbery, and Count 3, unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. Counsel for the appellant stated to the trial court:
The State demurred and suggested that the rule pertaining to four strikes be followed. The trial court stated:
'I would be inclined to go along with the rule in this matter.'
Unfortunately, the trial court did not 'go along with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Whitney v. State
...are those which are made to the juror, without assigning any reason, which the courts are bound to respect." Pearson v. State, 15 Md.App. 462, 465, 291 A.2d 167 (1972) (quoting Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 462, 464 (1881)). According to the Court of Appeals: In insuring that ... an impartial jur......
-
St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Smith
...286 A.2d 132 [1972]. Judge Gilbert discussed and analyzed in great depth the nature of the peremptory challenge in Pearson v. State, 15 Md.App. 462, 291 A.2d 167 [1972]. See also Bever v. State, 4 Md.App. 436, 439-440, 243 A.2d 634 [1968], and Johnson v. State, 9 Md.App. 143, 148-151, 262 A......
-
Gnau v. Seidel
...476 (1970); Brown v. Fraley, 222 Md. 480, 161 A.2d 128 (1960); Callahan v. Dean, 17 Md.App. 67, 299 A.2d 479 (1973); Pearson v. State, 15 Md.App. 462, 291 A.2d 167 (1972); Ritter v. Danbury, 15 Md.App. 309, 290 A.2d 173 (1972); In re Arnold, 12 Md.App. 384, 278 A.2d 658 (1971). Nevertheless......
-
Bundy v. State
...the peremptory challenge in Maryland has been thoroughly traced in Turpin v. State, 55 Md. 462 (1881). See also Pearson v. State, 15 Md.App. 462, 465-467, 291 A.2d 167 (1972); Spencer v. State, 20 Md.App. 201, 201-204, 314 A.2d 727 (1974).3 The allowance of four peremptory challenges to eac......