Peterson v. State, No. 46821

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: GILLESPIE; The defendant relies upon the argument
• Citation: 268 So.2d 335
• Parties: Fred PETERSON v. STATE of Mississippi.
• Docket Number: No. 46821
• Decision Date: 19 June 1972

Page 335

268 So.2d 335 Fred PETERSON
v.
STATE of Mississippi. No. 46821. Supreme Court of Mississippi. June 19, 1972.
On Rehearing Nov. 6, 1972.

Harold J. DeMetz, Ebb J. DeMetz, Gulfport, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

GILLESPIE, Chief Justice:

This is the second appeal of Fred Peterson, who was first convicted of murder in the Circuit Court of Stone County and sentenced

Page 336

to suffer the death penalty. His conviction was reversed by this Court on the ground of improper venue. Peterson v. State, 242 So.2d 420 (Miss.1970). Thereafter, he was tried in the Second Judicial District of Harrison County and was again convicted of murder of and sentenced to suffer the death penalty. At both trials and on both appeals the defendant has had the services of the same court-appointed counsel, who has capably served his client with selfless devotion in the best tradition of the profession.

I.

Defendant contends first that the process of selecting grand and petit jurors deprived him of due process and equal protection of the law. Mississippi Code Annotated section 1766 (1956) provides in part that the board of supervisors 'shall use the registration book of voters and shall select and list the names of qualified person of good intelligence, sound judgment, and fair character. . . .' Defendant argues that this statute permits the board of supervisors to use purely subjective tests and that jurors need only meet the personal requirements of the individual members of the board of supervisors. Defendant further argues that inasmuch as he is of law intelligence, poor character, and is of low intelligence, poor character, and and selecting jurors deprived him from being tried by a jury of his peers, and for this reason defendant's life was placed in the hands of individual jurors who probably could not appreciate the facts and circumstances of his life, background, education, character and judgment.

Defendant's arguments are without merit. All provisions of law relating to testing, drawing, summoning and impaneling jurors are merely directory. Holloway v. State, 242 So.2d 454 (Miss.1970). There was no showing in the trial court that the jurors were unconstitutionally listed or drawn. Gordon v. State, 160 So.2d 73 (Miss.1964). Moreover, due process and equal protection of the law do not require lowering the quality of the trial process. This Court has rejected the contention that the statutory method of selecting jurors is unconstitutionally vague because of alleged subjective and nonreviewable standards. Reed v. State, 199 So.2d 803 (Miss.1967), cert. denied 390 U.S. 413, 88 S.Ct. 1113, 19 L.Ed.2d 1273 (1968). The test is whether the jury lists reasonably reflect a cross-section of the population suitable in character and intelligence for that civic duty. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). The jury in this case was lawfully drawn, listed, and impaneled. Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625. 92 S.Ct. 1221, 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972).

II.

The principal argument of defendant is that imposition of the death penalty constitutes 'cruel and unusual punishment' under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and 'cruel or unusual punishment' under Mississippi Constitution Article 3 section 28. This Court recently considered this question in Capler v. State, 237 So.2d 445 (Miss.1970), and held that imposition of the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual punishment, and upheld the statutes imposing capital punishment. In the earlier case of Shimniok v. State, 197 Miss. 179, 19 So.2d 760 (1944), the death penalty and the arguments for and against it were considered and the method of determining such punishment upheld.

The defendant relies upon the argument, authorities and supporting data submitted to the Supreme Court of California in People v. Anderson, 6 Cal.3d...