State v. Petty, 41825
| Decision Date | 02 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 41825,41825 |
| Citation | 610 S.W.2d 126 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Joseph PETTY, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert C. Babione, Public Defender, John Putzel, Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.
John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Paul Robert Otto, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, George A. Peach, Circuit Atty., St. Louis, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of tampering with a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to four years in the Missouri Division of Corrections. We reverse and remand.
On appeal the single error assigned is the refusal of the trial court to sustain defendant's challenges for cause to two veniremen, both retired police officers.
Our standard of review was enunciated by the Missouri Supreme Court in State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838, 99 S.Ct. 124, 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978):
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.... All doubt should be resolved in favor of the trial court because he is in a far better position to determine a challenge for cause than an appellate court ....
During the voir dire examination of the jury panel, venireman William Reineke stated: He had been a police officer for thirty years during such time he had dealings with the circuit attorney's office as a police officer. He had been retired from the police force for three years, but currently works as a clerk for the police department proof-reading records and police reports. He had been having daily contact with police officers at work. He knew Sergeant Micciche, a police officer endorsed as a state's witness. Reineke stated without any equivocation that he could be a fair and impartial juror and could judge the testimony of Sergeant Micciche and other police officers as he would the testimony of any other witness.
Venireman John Able stated that he had been a police officer for almost thirty years. He had been in the circuit attorney's office many times. He had been retired from the police force for three years. He also knew Sergeant Micciche. Able was currently working as security guard for a bank. Able stated unequivocally that he could be a fair and impartial juror and would judge a police officer's testimony, including that of Sergeant Micciche, as he would that of any other witness. Able and Reineke had known each other for a long time.
A former affiliation with law enforcement, standing alone, is not ground for challenge for cause. State v. Russ, 574 S.W.2d 5, 6 (Mo.App.1978). This court held that a juror who had served twenty-seven years as a police officer before retirement and declared that he would give no greater weight to the testimony of police officers did not have to be excluded from the jury panel when challenged for cause. Id.
This court has consistently held that current members of a police force, whether active or not, should be stricken for cause from a jury panel in a criminal case....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Benedict
...typically had a close relationship with one or more of the police witnesses who would be testifying in the case. See State v. Petty , 610 S.W.2d 126, 127 (Mo. App. 1980) (juror was former police officer who knew police witnesses). In particular, where the prospective juror works in law enfo......
-
State v. Moorehead, ED 100066.
...law enforcement is not ground[s] for challenge for cause.” State v. Williams, 650 S.W.2d 642, 643 (Mo.App. E.D.1983); State v. Petty, 610 S.W.2d 126, 127 (Mo.App. E.D.1980) (“[t]he ultimate question is what evidence is there to show more than a former affiliation with law enforcement”). To ......
-
State v. Bevly, 46992
...court is in a far better position to make that determination than is an appellate court. State v. Cuckovich, supra, ; State v. Petty, 610 S.W.2d 126 (Mo.App.1980). Davis had served as a military policeman during World War II and served thereafter as a police officer in California for nine m......
-
State v. Williams, 45368
...effect of these factors was enough to disqualify Ms. Perkins citing State v. Holliman, 529 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1975) and State v. Petty, 610 S.W.2d 126 (Mo.App.1980). In Holliman, the victim was a police officer and the challenged venireperson knew the victim and was a friend of the victim's......