State v. Hopkins, 66298
| Decision Date | 02 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 66298,66298 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Leonard R. HOPKINS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Debra Buie Arnold, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
David C. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Leonard Hopkins, a persistent offender, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter, Count I, and first degree assault in Counts II and III after shooting three people, killing one and injuring the other two. The jury assessed his punishment at fifteen years, Count I; life imprisonment, Count II; and a concurrent fifteen-year term on Count III. After affirmance in the court of appeals, this Court transferred the case to examine whether the trial court abused its discretion by overruling defendant's challenge for cause of Venireman McKay during voir dire, thus forcing him to use a peremptory strike to remove the prospective juror. Reversed and remanded.
"In determining the qualifications of a prospective juror, the trial court has very wide discretion, and the court's ruling will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly against the evidence and constitutes a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 649 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838, 99 S.Ct. 124, 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978).
Both of Venireman McKay's sons had been on the St. Louis Police Department. One son was killed in the line of duty while executing a search warrant twelve years prior to defendant's trial. The other son moved to Michigan to work on a police department in a low-crime resort area at his family's insistence.
The following is from the voir dire examination of Venireman McKay:
MS. LEISENRING (defense counsel): Now, your son who was killed in the line of duty executing a search warrant?
VENIREMAN McKAY: Yeah, I guess so. All I know is that they busted into an apartment house on Waterman.
MS. LEISENRING: And you believe it was a drug raid.
VENIREMAN McKAY: That's what the paper said.
MS. LEISENRING: And it was a Shoot Out and your son was killed by one of the men?
VENIREMAN McKAY: Who was in the apartment, yes.
MS. LEISENRING: Okay. Was anybody else arrested and charged in connection with this incident?
VENIREMAN McKAY: Yes, everybody in the apartment was arrested.
MS. LEISENRING: Okay. Let me ask you this, were you satisfied with the way that matter was handled, the subsequent arrest of the other people that had been in the apartment?
VENIREMAN McKAY: I don't believe everybody else even got a sentence out of it.
MS. LEISENRING: How do you feel?
VENIREMAN McKAY: The only one that was hurt was the boy he killed.
MS. LEISENRING: How do you feel about that, sir?
VENIREMAN McKAY: I think somebody should have paid a little bit.
VENIREMAN McKAY: I can't tell you what's going to happen.... It might might not. I don't know. I try to forget it really, but there are a lot of things I see on the T.V., in the paper, what have you, that brings it all back. Just recently, only last month was the anniversary, in February. Well, my wife and I both had a terrible time this past month, normally do.
VENIREMAN McKAY: I would say definitely, sure, there is a possibility.
MS. LEISENRING: Okay. And do you think there's a possibility that then the end result is that it could affect your ability to render a fair and impartial verdict in this case?
VENIREMAN McKAY: It might. Like I said before, I'd try not to, but I don't know what the possibilities are.
* * *
* * *
MR. BAUR (prosecutor): Okay. If after listening to all the evidence you felt that the defendant had not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be able to return a verdict of not guilty?
VENIREMAN McKAY: Like I said before, I would hope to, yes.
MR. BAUR: Okay. You would be able to follow the Court's Instructions?
VENIREMAN McKAY: I hope so.
VENIREMAN McKAY: I certainly would try.
THE COURT: All right.
VENIREMAN McKAY: I can't say what I'm going to do. I know what I want to do, but I can't tell you what the possibilities are going to be. Like the lawyer just asked me, when we get into the trial, will it bring back things like memories of what happened. Well, yeah, there's a great possibility that can happen. Right now I have nothing.
An accused must be afforded a full panel of qualified jurors before he is required to expend his peremptory challenges; denial by a trial court of a legitimate request by an accused to excuse for cause a partial or prejudiced venireperson constitutes reversible error. State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1976); State v. Lovell, 506 S.W.2d 441 (Mo. banc 1974).
In determining when a challenge for cause should be sustained, each case must be judged on its facts. State v. Harris, 425 S.W.2d 148, 155 (Mo.1968). "Errors in the exclusion of potential jurors should always be made on the side of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McMillin
...will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is clearly against the evidence and constitutes a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Hopkins, 687 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Mo. banc 1985), citing, State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 649 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838, 99 S.Ct. 124, 58 L.Ed.2d......
-
Presley v. State
...principles. A criminal defendant is entitled to a full panel of unqualified jurors before making his peremptory challenges. State v. Hopkins, 687 S.W.2d 188 (Mo. banc 1985); State v. Zweifel, 570 S.W.2d 792 (Mo.App.1978). If for any reason, statutory or otherwise, a venireman is not in a po......
-
State v. Wise
...assess credibility. They are, therefore, afforded broad discretion in determining whether to strike a venireperson for cause. State v. Hopkins, 687 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Mo. banc 1985). A reviewing court will not disturb a trial court's ruling unless the record reflects a "clear abuse of discret......
-
State v. Lingar, 68156
...court to grant a legitimate challenge for cause is reversible error. State v. Stewart, 692 S.W.2d 295, 298 (Mo. Banc 1985); State v. Hopkins, 687 S.W.2d 188, 190 (Mo. banc 1985). Absence of an independent examination by the trial court justifies a more searching review by an appellate court......