State v. Thompson, No. KCD
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | SOMERVILLE |
| Citation | 541 S.W.2d 16 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD |
| Decision Date | 06 July 1976 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Edward E. THOMPSON, Appellant. 28200. |
Page 16
v.
Edward E. THOMPSON, Appellant.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer Denied Aug. 2, 1976.
Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 12, 1976.
Thomas M. Larson, Public Defender, Lee M. Nation, Asst. Public Defender, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
Before SHANGLER, P.J., and SWOFFORD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.
SOMERVILLE, Judge.
A jury found defendant guilty of robbery, first degree, (Section 560.120, RSMo 1969) and his punishment was fixed at seven years confinement in the Missouri Department of Corrections.
On appeal defendant claims that he is entitled to a new trial solely by reason of
Page 17
the trial judge's refusal to honor his request to excuse venireman Howard H. Moore for cause, thereby forcing him to expend one of his peremptory challenges to remove said juror.This state has steadfastly hewed to the proposition that an accused in a criminal case must be afforded a full panel of qualified jurors before he is required to expend his peremptory challenges, and denial by a trial court of a legitimate request by an accused to excuse for cause a partial or prejudiced venireman constitutes reversible error. State v. DeClue, 400 S.W.2d 50 (Mo.1966); State v. Land, 478 S.W.2d 290 (Mo.1972); State v. Lovell, 506 S.W.2d 441 (Mo.banc 1974). This proposition is rooted in the constitutionally guaranteed right of every accused to a 'public trial by an impartial jury', Mo.Const. Art. I, Sec. 18(a), and personifies a dedicated judicial effort to preserve inviolate this constitutionally guaranteed right in the broadest sense. Experience has taught that it is not always possible to objectively demonstrate juror partiality. Not infrequently, juror partiality is subtle, elusive, and highly subjective. When juror partiality is capable of being objectively demonstrated, challenges for cause have been devised as a means for achieving an impartial jury. When juror partiality is sensed, but incapable of being objectively demonstrated, peremptory challenges have been devised as a means for achieving an impartial jury. Together, they serve the ultimate goal of obtaining a jury free from the taint of both objectively demonstrated and subjectively sensed partiality. Purity of the right to be tried by an impartial jury is so zealously guarded that an accused may covet his peremptory challenges and 'spend' them as he alone sees fit. Therefore, if an accused is not presented with a full panel of jurors objectively demonstrated as qualified before he exercises his peremptory challenges, his given number of peremptory challenges is proportionately reduced and his right to 'spend' them as he alone sees fit is accordingly impinged. The strength and integrity of trial by jury in a criminal case lies in the composite impartiality of the jury finally selected to try a particular case, and both are eroded to an unknown extent when even a single or isolated instance of partiality creeps in, whether objectively demonstrated or subjectively sensed.
On voir dire examination of the jury panel in the instant case, the prosecutor elicited a show of hands from several veniremen who had previously been victims of various unrelated crimes. Venireman Howard H. Moore was among those who raised their hands. In exploring his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bey
...them as he alone sees fit is accordingly impinged.' " State v. Morrison, 557 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Mo.1977) (quoting State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16, 17 (Mo.App.1976)); State v. Brown, 496 So.2d 261, 265-66 (La.1986) (loss of peremptory is denial of right); accord State v. Ealy, 624 S.W.2d 490,......
-
State v. Olinghouse, 61216.
...produce bias or prejudice against the defendant on trial and that question simply was not put as it was in the case of State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1976), relied upon by appellant. On this record, it cannot be said that the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. See St......
-
State v. Treadway, 60140
...on the cases of State v. Holliman, 529 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Carter, 544 S.W.2d 334 (Mo.App.1976); and State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1976) to substantiate his contention that it was error for the trial court not to strike Mr. Duke for cause. In each of these cases, a......
-
State v. Smith, 63338
...veniremen from which to make his allotted peremptory challenges, State v. Engleman, 634 S.W.2d 466, 471 (Mo.1982); State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16, 17 (Mo.App.1976). While trial court refusal to sustain a valid challenge for cause constitutes reversible error, State v. Engleman, 634 S.W.2d......
-
State v. Bey
...them as he alone sees fit is accordingly impinged.' " State v. Morrison, 557 S.W.2d 445, 446 (Mo.1977) (quoting State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16, 17 (Mo.App.1976)); State v. Brown, 496 So.2d 261, 265-66 (La.1986) (loss of peremptory is denial of right); accord State v. Ealy, 624 S.W.2d 490,......
-
State v. Olinghouse, 61216.
...produce bias or prejudice against the defendant on trial and that question simply was not put as it was in the case of State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1976), relied upon by appellant. On this record, it cannot be said that the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. See St......
-
State v. Treadway, 60140
...on the cases of State v. Holliman, 529 S.W.2d 932 (Mo.App.1975); State v. Carter, 544 S.W.2d 334 (Mo.App.1976); and State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16 (Mo.App.1976) to substantiate his contention that it was error for the trial court not to strike Mr. Duke for cause. In each of these cases, a......
-
State v. Smith, 63338
...veniremen from which to make his allotted peremptory challenges, State v. Engleman, 634 S.W.2d 466, 471 (Mo.1982); State v. Thompson, 541 S.W.2d 16, 17 (Mo.App.1976). While trial court refusal to sustain a valid challenge for cause constitutes reversible error, State v. Engleman, 634 S.W.2d......