People v. Joyner

• Decision Date: 21 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 482-0154,482-0154
• Citation: People v. Joyner, 441 N.E.2d 1214, 109 Ill.App.3d 1083, 65 Ill.Dec. 700 (Ill. App. 1982)
• Parties: , 65 Ill.Dec. 700 The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey JOYNER, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1214

441 N.E.2d 1214

109 Ill.App.3d 1083, 65 Ill.Dec. 700

The PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Jeffrey JOYNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 482-0154.

Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth District.

Oct. 21, 1982.

Daniel D. Yuhas, DeputyState Appellate Defender, Lawrence Bapst, Asst. State Appellate Defender, Springfield, Brief prepared with the Assistance of Julie P. Verheye, Indiana University School of Law, Third Year Student, for defendant-appellant.

Basil G. Greanias, State's Atty., Decatur, Robert J. Biderman, Deputy Director, State's Attorneys Appellate Service Commission, David E. Mannchen, Staff Atty., Springfield, for plaintiff-appellee.

WEBBER, Justice:

Defendant was tried in absentia in the circuit court of Macon County for the offense of burglary in violation of section 19-1(a) of the Criminal Code of 1961.(Ill.Rev.Stat.1979, ch. 38, par. 19-1(a).)A jury convicted him of the offense and he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment.

On appeal defendant challenges the composition of the jury which tried and convicted him; he further claims that the proof was insufficient to establish that he wilfully avoided trial, thus invalidating proceedings taken in his absence.No question of reasonable doubt has been raised and therefore we need not delve into the facts of the case.

On January 18, 1982, which appears to be the opening day for jury trials in the county and before any cases were called for trial, defense counsel, together with a number of other counsel representing criminal defendants, filed a verified motion challenging the jury array.The affidavit supporting the motion must be taken as true, since no counteraffidavits were filed and at one point in the proceedings the People offered to confess the motion.

That affidavit discloses that approximately 300 veniremen had been drawn by the Macon County Jury Commission for the January 1982 venire; that one of the cases on the January call involved the A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company and Swift and Company, an Esmark Company subsidiary; and that this case was anticipated to last about three months.The affidavit further states that "the Court" caused to be sent to all of the 300 veniremen a questionnaire which contained, among others, the following questions:

"6. Are either of your parents or any
                   of your children employed by the
                   A.E. Staley Company?                 Yes___  No___
                 7. Have you or your spouse or any
                   of the above ever been employed by
                   the A.E. Staley Company?             Yes___  No___
                 8. Have you, your spouse, or any of
                   the above ever been employed by
                   Swift and Company?                   Yes___  No___
                 9. Do you or your spouse own any
                   shares of stock or any bonds issued
                   by the A.E. Staley Company?          Yes___  No___
                 10.  Do you or your spouse own any
                   shares of stock issued by Swift and
                   Company or Esmark?                   Yes___  No___."
                

It further appears from the affidavit that if any veniremen answered in the affirmative to any of the foregoing questions, he was deferred until some following month; and that the Staley-Swift case was only one of approximately 200 cases which had been called for trial in January 1982.

A hearing was held on the motion before the Chief Judge of the circuit, who was apparently responsible for the questions and the consequent deferrals.One of the defense counsel testified at the hearing and stated that 37 persons were deferred on account of some connection with either Staley or Swift and that 84 persons remained in the venire which reported for service on January 18.The remainder of the 300 is apparently accounted for by failure of notice, physical or mental disability, or hardship.

The reason for the deferrals is not articulated at length in the record except for one finding by the Chief Judge as follows:

"The January jury list was screened to eliminate jurors who would be challenged for cause as employees, stockholders, or friends of the Staley v. Swift civil trial [sic], which was represented to last in excess of three months."

The motion was then denied.

Defendant's trial was then assigned to another circuit judge and the motion was renewed before him.It was again denied as having already been ruled upon by the Chief Judge.

It is apparent from reading his remarks in ruling on the challenge to the array that the Chief Judge was principally concerned with the matter of selection at the initial stage, that is, drawing names from a drum for the jury commission:

"This jury to start with was drawn like any other jury.There was an order that three hundred jurors be drawn.It was drawn exactly like any other panel by have a Jury Commissioner, a Clerk, a Judge, and a person from the County Clerk's office, the Circuit Clerk was present.The drawing was like we've had for months and for years to get the three hundred.And then, we had the screening process that is done one way or another.Every jury panel by--usually the jury panel sends out--the Jury Commission sends out a card to a jury saying you are coming up for jury duty in two months.If you have a question or a problem call this number which is the Clerk of the Jury Commission.Then, they get into the matter of interviews which are held the first Tuesday of each month getting the juror's problem or their question.In this case, being aware of the unusual case, the process was a little more direct by pointing out to jurors about this problem of the Staley case which we haven't had a case that lasted three months in my recollection, that goes thirty-years; and we knew that it was going to be a special problem to every juror; and, therefore, the card that went out under the name of the Jury Commission was to them to ask them for their problems that may arise from this case.They also asked them about disqualification for cause.But, that is the Jury Commission function.I freely admit that the Jury Commission was assisted in this in certain things that was done by the courts in trying to get a jury that would proceed today as we had been assured the trial would take place. * * * "

This argument ignores the fact that prejudice to a defendant may occur by systematic exclusion of a discrete group of the community either from the jury drum itself or from the venire which is selected by a jury commission and sent to courtrooms for trial.In Taylor v. Louisiana(1975), 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690, the Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana statute which exempted women from jury duty under certain circumstances.The court held that a requirement that a jury...