State v. Gutierrez, 37978

• Decision Date: 29 October 1971
• Docket Number: No. 37978,37978
• Citation: 187 Neb. 383,191 N.w.2d 164
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Thomas G. H. GUTIERREZ, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 164

191 N.W.2d 164

187 Neb. 383

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Thomas G. H. GUTIERREZ, Appellant.

No. 37978.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Oct. 29, 1971.

Syllabus by the Court

1. A defendant in a criminal case is not constitutionally entitled to demand a proportionate number of his race on the jury which tries him nor on the venire or jury roll from which petit jurors are drawn.

2. To be constitutionally impermissible, the exclusion of any given sector of the population from jury duty must be purposeful or intentional.

3. The use of voter registration lists or poll books for jury selection systems is constitutionally permissible.

4. The Nebraska system of selecting jurors is clearly within constitutional limits.

5. Proof that an exhibit remained in the custody of law enforcement and court officers is sufficient to prove a chain of possession.

6. Whether a defendant be sentenced or placed on probation is a matter within the discretion of the trial court.

7. Where a sentence has been imposed within statutory limits, it will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion.

Beatty, Morgan & Vyhnalek, North Platte, Wm. S. Padley, Ogallala, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., C. C. Sheldon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, NEWTON and CLINTON, JJ.

NEWTON, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of selling cannabis sativa or marijuana. On appeal he contends there was error in the selection of the jury panel and in the admission in evidence of a bag of marijuana. He further urges that his sentence is excessive. On review of the record, we are constrained to affirm the judgment of the district court.

It is stipulated that the jury panel was selected in the manner provided by law. Slips numbered 1 to 10, inclusive, are placed in a receptacle and one number is drawn by lot. The list of registered voters, or if none, the poll books, are then opened. The name of the registrant or voter which corresponds with the key number drawn, and every tenth name thereafter, constitutes the names of persons comprising the jury panel, subject to deletion of those ineligible to serve or exempt from service. See §§ 25--1627 and 25--1628, R.R.S.1943. It is said that Mexican-Americans are not properly represented upon the panels so selected yet the proportionate share of the population of the county comprised of Mexican-Americans is not reflected in the record. This failure, together with the fact that no challenge to the array appears, would ordinarily dispose of the question; however, since a constitutional question may be involved, that facet of the problem will also be considered.

A defendant in a criminal case is not constitutionally entitled to demand a proportionate number of his race on the jury which tries him nor on the venire or jury roll from which petit jurors are drawn. Swain v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759. To be constitutionally impermissible, the exclusion of any given sector of the population from jury duty must be purposeful or intentional. Swain v. State of Alabama, Supra.

The use of voter registration lists or poll books for jury-selection systems has been repeatedly approved as constitutionally permissible even though the names were not selected by lot. See, United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564 (1st Cir., 1970); Camp v. United States, 413 F.2d 419 (5th Cir., 1969); United States v. Caci, 401 F.2d 664 (2d Cir., 1968).

It is difficult to conceive of a fairer or more practical method of selecting jurors than that used in Nebraska. The names are drawn by lot from lists of voters or registrants. The system is clearly within constitutional...