Satterfield v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5717,5717 |
| Parties | Leon SATTERFIELD, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Troy L. Henry, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Ray Thornton, Atty. Gen., by John D. Bridgforth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Upon a charge of having burned a barn the appellant was convicted of arson and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. The facts are stated in our opinions upon two earlier appeals and need not be repeated. 245 Ark. 337, 432 S.W.2d 472 (1968); 248 Ark. 395, 451 S.W.2d 730 (1970). The appellant's present points for reversal have to do with the selection of the jury, the admissibility of evidence, and the court's instructions.
Juror Collins at first stated that he had an opinion about the case and that it might take evidence to remove it. He did not recall any particular item of evidence, but he had 'a vague remembrance of hearing about the case and possibly hearing a portion of the testimony.' Upon further interrogation and explanation by the court, however, Collins stated that he understood his position better and that he could lay aside whatever opinion he had and try the case upon the evidence and the court's instructions. We find no error in the court's acceptance of the juror. The appellant had the burden of showing, by means of the voir dire examination, that Collins was subject to a challenge for cause. That burden was not met. It was not positively shown that Collins had firsthand knowledge of the facts or that he had actually heard any testimony at an earlier trial. Here the facts are materially different from those in Glover v. State, 248 Ark. 1260, 455 S.W.2d 670 (1970), for there the jurors ended the interrogation by stating that it would take evidence to remove their opinion. Here just the opposite is true. We do not see that Act 568 of 1969, which provides that no person shall serve as a juror who has formed or expressed an opinion 'which may influence jhis judgment,' made any substantial change in our law. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 39--105(c) (Supp.1971). Whether the venireman's opinion may influence his judgment is still a matter to be determined by the trial judge.
Later on the court excused a prospective juror whose brother was married to an aunt of the accused. Even if the court was in error in finding the juror to be disqualified, no prejudice appears. 'Since a party is not entitled to have any particular juror, the erroneous rejection of a competent talesman is not prejudicial, in the absence of a showing that some biased or incompetent juror was thrust upon him.' Lewis v. Phillips, 223 Ark. 380, 266 S.W.2d 68 (1954). That showing is not made in the case at bar.
The court did not err in allowing a witness to testify that one of the accused's companions had said that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owens v. State
...(emphasis added). See also Ruiz, 273 Ark. 94, 617 S.W.2d 6; Strode v. State, 259 Ark. 859, 537 S.W.2d 162 (1976); Satterfield v. State, 252 Ark. 747, 483 S.W.2d 171 (1972); Lewis v. Phillips, 223 Ark. 380, 266 S.W.2d 68 (1954). This court has It is thoroughly settled that a defendant has no......
-
Beed v. State
...of the trial judge and that appellant had the burden of showing the prospective juror's disqualification. See Satterfield v. State, 252 Ark. 747, 483 S.W.2d 171; Swindler v. State, 264 Ark. 107, 569 S.W.2d 120. This case, however, is unlike Gammel v. State, 259 Ark. 96, 531 S.W.2d 474, cite......
-
Hobbs v. State, CR
...unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of discretion. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1981); Satterfield v. State, 252 Ark. 747, 483 S.W.2d 171 (1972). We find no abuse of discretion here. The appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to excuse for cause venire......
-
Montgomery v. State
...the burden of showing the prospective juror's disqualification. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980); Satterfield v. State, 252 Ark. 747, 483 S.W.2d 171 (1972); Swindler v. State, 264 Ark. 107, 569 S.W.2d 120 (1976). The correct test is whether the prospective juror can lay as......