State v. Harlin, 59913
Citation | 556 S.W.2d 42 |
Decision Date | 27 September 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 59913,59913 |
Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Emerson E. HARLIN, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Lee M. Nation, Kansas City, for appellant.
Nanette K. Laughrey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Defendant, convicted of robbery first degree (§ 560.135, RSMo Supp. 1975) and sentenced to twenty years of imprisonment, appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City district. The cause was transferred here prior to opinion as defendant raised issues of constitutional construction falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of this court under Mo.Const. Art. V, § 3, as amended 1976.
For his sole contention defendant charges as error the trial court's failure to quash the jury panel because Missouri's jury selection process, prescribed by Mo.Const. Art. I, § 22(b) 1 and its implementing statute § 494.031(2), RSMo Supp. 1975, 2 systematically excludes women.
It is stated in defendant's brief that he had No record appears of such motion having been made prior to or during trial. 3 That being so, the court had no opportunity to correct the alleged error and the point is not preserved for review. State v. Anderson, 375 S.W.2d 116, 120(8) (Mo.1964). However, the following appears in the transcript of the hearing on defendant's motion for new trial:
Following the granting of defendant's oral request to amend his motion for new trial, the court permitted introduction of evidence relative to the Jackson County jury selection system and gender composition of the challenged panel. While the trial court's ruling and its subsequent action permitting the evidentiary hearing more than ten days after verdict runs counter to this court's decision in State v. Tucker, 451 S.W.2d 91 (Mo.1970) and Rule 27.20(a), such action is supportive of defendant's assertion that he had in fact moved to quash before the jury was sworn, the transcript reveals no such pretrial motion. If defendant believed the transcript deficient in that regard, it was incumbent upon him to bring such deficiencies to the attention of the trial court under Rule 81.12 affording it the opportunity to correct such omissions and misstatements, or point out such deficiencies to the appellate court following filing of the transcript there. Having failed so to do, defendant's contention is denied since matters contained in appellant's brief or elsewhere, but not incorporated in or made a part of the officially approved transcript, may not be considered on appeal. State v. Burrington, 371 S.W.2d 319 (Mo.1963). Nevertheless, because of the above described matters occurring in connection with defendant's motion for new trial, we examine for plain error under Rule 27.20(c).
Defendant contends that Mo.Const. Art. I, § 22(b), and its implementing statute, § 494.031(2), RSMo Supp. 1975, permitting women the option of declining jury service, have been rendered invalid by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975). There the Court struck down provisions of the Louisiana Constitution and its implementing statute requiring women to file a written declaration with the clerk of the district court expressing their desire or intent to be subject to jury service before their names would be included in jury wheels or panels. The question, of whether the cited Missouri constitutional provision and its implementing statutory section are facially valid after Taylor, was fully considered and ruled against what is essentially this defendant's contention, in the companion case State v. Duren, No. 59914, 556 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.banc 1977), decided this date.
The only question remaining is whether from the evidence it has been shown that under the Jackson County jury selection process the resulting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Duren, 59914
...the objective of a representative cross-sectional jury would not be realized.2 The other four cases were as follows: In State v. Harlin, Mo., 556 S.W.2d 42, of the persons summoned and who appeared as prospective jurors during the week of defendant's trial, only 9.2 percent were women. In S......
-
State v. Williams, 63587
...defendant states in his brief. Assertions made by an appellant in the brief but not shown in the record are not evidence. See State v. Harlin, 556 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Mo. banc 1977), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 439 U.S. 459, 99 S.Ct. 709, 58 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979); State v. Williams, 623 ......
-
State v. Woodward, 39837
...transcript which incorporated the proceedings showing the alleged trial error. Jackson v. State, 514 S.W.2d 532, 533 (Mo.1974); State v. Harlin, 556 S.W.2d 42, 44 (Mo. banc 1977). The defendant has failed to show wherein and why any of the omitted matters were prejudicial and sufficient for......
-
Harlin v. Missouri
...contention that the challenged provisions are invalid because they systematically exclude women from the jury-selection process. 556 S.W.2d 42, 44 (1977). The highest state court having reached and decided this issue, its judgment is subject to review in this Court. SeeJenkins v. Georgia, 4......