State v. Peters, KCD
| Decision Date | 30 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. George J. PETERS, Appellant. 29710. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
J. Martin Kerr, Tittle & Kerr, A Professional Corporation, Independence, for appellant.
John D. Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Frank J. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Before SOMERVILLE, P. J., and DIXON and TURNAGE, JJ.
Defendant George J. Peters was convicted by a Jackson County jury of murder in the first degree and was sentenced in accordance with the verdict to life imprisonment. He has appealed to this court, alleging that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the jury panel from which the jury was selected. The motion was based upon the alleged underrepresentation of women on the jury panel, in violation of his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to be tried by a jury drawn from a panel representing a fair cross section of the community.
This point must be sustained.
In connection with the motion to quash the jury panel, it was stipulated by the state and the defendant that the panel was selected from a jury wheel which had been made up as follows:
Step 1. From the list of registered voters of Jackson County were selected at random a number of prospective jurors for the year 1976. 1 To these persons were sent questionnaires in the form prescribed by Section 497.130, RSMo 1975 Supp., to be completed and returned to the jury commissioner.
This questionnaire informed women of their exemption from jury service, if claimed. A woman could claim the exemption by signing her name on a line provided for the purpose and returning the questionnaire, otherwise uncompleted, to the jury commissioner. There were 29,144 questionnaires mailed to Women who were eligible for jury service. Of that number, 21,884 (75%) were returned with the women's automatic exemption claimed.
Step 2. From the completed questionnaire, when returned, those persons were eliminated who were ineligible or who claimed exemption. The remaining names constituted the jury wheel for the one year. The 1976 jury wheel contained 19,755 males (70.9%) and 8,099 females (29.1%).
Women represented 54% Of the general population, according to the 1970 census.
Step 3. From week to week there were summoned from the jury wheel, by random selection, the number of prospective jurors which a designated circuit judge determined to be needed for jury service the following week. These summonses contained on the back this instruction: "Women, if you do not wish to serve, return the summons to the judge named on the reverse side as quickly as possible."
Step 4. From the prospective jurors who responded to the summonses week by week the panels were made up from which the petit juries were selected.
The stipulation supplies the additional information that, during the months of January through July there were 4519 prospective jurors who actually appeared for service in response to the summonses. Of these, 3877 (85.8%) were men, while 642 (14.2%) were women. Of the thirty weekly groups appearing for service, women represented less than 15% Of the number on each of sixteen. Their lowest ratio was 7.3% And their highest was 21.9%.
At defendant's trial, the jury was chosen from a panel of 60, including 13 women. The trial jury was made up of twelve men and no women.
On similar evidence, the Supreme Court of the United States in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. ---, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), determined that Jackson County venire selection system resulted in an underrepresentation of women on venires, and that the defendant Duren was thereby deprived of his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community. Such right, said the Court, citing Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690 (1975), is given by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The Duren case, decided during the pendency of the appeal in the instant case, is controlling here.
In Duren, the court stated that the defendant had established a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement by showing: first, that women were a numerous and distinctive group in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nevels, KCD
...582 S.W.2d 298 (Mo.App. 1979); State v. Hawkins, 582 S.W.2d 333 (Mo.App. 1979); State v. Wickizer, No. KCD 30,033; State v. Peters, 582 S.W.2d 323 (Mo.App. 1979); State v. McReynolds, 581 S.W.2d 465 (Mo.App. 1979); State v. Hunt, 581 S.W.2d 136, under mandate from the Supreme Court of the U......
-
State v. Wilson, WD 64074.
...to the voir dire process, through which a jury is selected. State v. Walton, 899 S.W.2d 915, 919 (Mo.App. W.D.1995); State v. Peters, 582 S.W.2d 323, 325 (Mo.App. W.D.1979). Finally, logical analysis of section 476.753.1(1) is that the legislature intended to include venirepersons. All juro......
-
State v. Clark, KCD
...v. Buford, 582 S.W.2d 298 (1979); State v. Hawkins, 581 S.W.2d 102 (1979); State v. Wickizer, 584 S.W.2d 604 (1979); and State v. Peters, 582 S.W.2d 323 (1979). The defendant-appellant herein filed his motion to quash the jury panel at the earliest possible time based upon the unconstitutio......
-
State v. Coleman, KCD
...which show continued underrepresentation of females in jury venires of that venue in year 1976 beyond the base period of Duren (State v. Peters, 582 S.W.2d 323, No. KCD 29,710), and on a stipulation that the method for selection of the petit jury was that used in State v. Hardy, 568 S.W.2d ......