Rogers v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 16 September 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 513 S.W.2d 908,257 Ark. 13 |
| Parties | Lois ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 73--141. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Kenneth C. Coffelt, Little Rock, for appellant.
Jim Guy Tucker Atty. Gen., by O. H. Hargraves, Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of possessing stolen property and his punishment was assessed at five years imprisonment in the Department of Correction. We affirmed. Rogers v. State, 250 Ark. 572, 466 S.W.2d 252 (1971). Pending his appeal, appellant was released to serve a federal prison sentence. Upon being paroled he was returned to the proper state authorities, pursuant to a detainer, to serve the previously imposed state sentence. At that time eleven of the twelve trial jurors asked the court by written petition to suspend the three year old judgment. These jurors personally appeared before the court in support of their petition. During this hearing, one of the jurors testified that she had consistently voted for the minimum sentence of one year. However, in the belief that a majority vote of the jurors controlled, she agreed to the five year verdict. The trial court refused to suspend the sentence. Thereupon the appellant filed a motion to vacate the judgment and set aside the jury verdict on the basis of this juror's testimony. On appeal from a denial of that motion, appellant asserts that the jury verdict was invalid and a nullity because the juror's testimony is uncontradicted that she agreed to the verdict in the belief that 'she thought the majority ruled.' Consequently, appellant argues the verdict was not unanimous. We cannot agree.
Ark.Stat.Ann. § 43--2204 (Repl.1964) reads:
A juror cannot be examined to establish a ground for a new trial; except it be to establish, as a ground for a new trial, that the verdict was made by lot.
A verdict by lot is defined as involving an element of chance. Blaylack v. State, 236 Ark. 924, 370 S.W.2d 615 (1963); Speer v. State, 130 Ark. 457, 198 S.W. 113 (1917). See also Strahan v. Webb, 231 Ark. 426, 330 S.W.2d 291 (1959); Patton v. State, 189 Ark. 133, 70 S.W.2d 1034 (1934); Arnold v. State, 150 Ark. 27, 233 S.W. 818 (1921); and Fain v. Goodwin, 35 Ark. 109 (1879). In the case at bar, we cannot construe the juror's testimony as tending to establish that the jury verdict resulted from any element of chance. To hold otherwise would subvert the public policy upon which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. Meeks, Civ. No. FS-74-127-C.
...the matter be presented to the Court upon the opinions of the Arkansas Supreme Court, the transcript of the case of Rogers v. State, 257 Ark. 13, 513 S.W.2d 908 (1974) under the designation CR-73-141, with filing dates of Oct. 2, 1973 and April 29, 1974; and the per curiam order of the Arka......
-
Safley v. State
...jury be polled. During the poll one of the jurors stated the verdict was a "compromise" of the jury. Appellant cites Rogers v. State, 257 Ark. 13, 513 S.W.2d 908 (1974), and complains because the juror was not questioned as to her definition of "compromise." Appellant contends it is reasona......
-
Ward v. State, CA
...by lot is defined as involving an element of chance. Blaylack v. State, 236 Ark. 924, 370 S.W.2d 615 (1963). In Rogers v. State, 257 Ark. 13, 513 S.W.2d 908 (1974), the appellant had been convicted of possessing stolen property. Pending his appeal, he was released to serve a federal prison ......