Warren v. State

Decision Date24 October 1966
Docket NumberNo. 5219,5219
PartiesDon WARREN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Shelby Ferguson, Ash Flat, and Bennett & Purtle, Batesville, for appellant.

Bruce Bennett, Atty. Gen., Lance Hanshaw, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.

BLAND, Justice.

The appellant was convicted for the crime of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a prohibited area in Sharp County, Arkansas, and the jury fixed his punishment at a fine of $1,000.00. From this judgment and conviction appellant has perfected his appeal.

Appellant does not contend that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, but relies entirely on two points:

'I. The defendant was deprived of the protection of Arkansas Statutes 39--206 and 39--208 and of his state and federal constitutional guarantees under Art. 2 Secs. 7, 8, 13, 18, 21 of the Constitution of Arkansas and under the 14th Amendment (relating to due process), the 5th Amendment (relating to due process of law) and under the 6th Amendment (relating to public trial by impartial jury) of the United States Constitution.

II. The court was held at a wrong and improper place, consequently the court was without jurisdiction to try the defendant and the conviction a nullity.'

On April 1, 1966 appellant filed his motion to quash the jury panel alleging that Sharp County had been consolidated into one judicial district; that Ark.Stat.Ann. § 39--206 and § 39--208 require that the petit jurors be selected from all parts of the county; that all or 35 of the 36 persons summoned as jurors in this case resided in the old northern district of Sharp County which deprived appellant of his civil and constitutional rights.

On the same day, April 1, 1966, the court heard this motion, including the testimony of the jury commissioners, considered the stipulation entered into between the parties and found:

'That by Act No. 39 of the General Assembly of Arkansas of 1893 Sharp County was divided into two judicial districts, one being designated the Southern District with the county seat located at Evening Shade, and the other being designated the Northern District with the county seat at Hardy, and thereafter such county seats were established.

That by Act No. 110 of 1933, the terms of the Circuit Court for the Northern District commence the first Monday in January and continue for one year and the term for the Southern District commences the second Monday in July of each year and continues for a year thereafter and also by said Act No. 110 of 1933, the jurisdiction of said two districts were made co-extensive, the court in each said district having jurisdiction co-extensive with the entire county.

That on February 1, 1965 the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed an order of the Sharp County Circuit Court to the effect that by an election held in said county on June 11, 1963, a proper majority had voted to remove the county seats of Sharp County from Evening Shade and Hardy and to build a courthouse and establish a single county seat at Ash Flat, Arkansas.

That as yet no actual construction of a courthouse at Ash Flat has commenced.

That the various county offices and records still remain at Evening Shade and Hardy in the respective buildings heretofore utilized as courthouses and that the county governmental affairs, including the holding of Circuit Court, have been and are being conducted in the same or similar manner as prior to the aforesaid Supreme Court decision of February 1, 1965, and that there are no governmental affairs being conducted as yet at Ash Flat, Arkansas.

That in due time during the Northern District term which commenced on the first Monday in January, 1965 the court appointed jury commissioners for the purpose of selecting lists of grand, petit and special petit jurors for service during the January 1966 term of the Circuit Court for the Northern District and that at the time designated the same persons selected as jury commissioners, to-wit: Fred Sweitzer, Willie Jean Oyler and Herbert Schales, reported for service and were properly examined as to their qualifications and upon being found to be qualified were sworn as such and were instructed as to their duties as provided by law.

That in view of the fact there is as yet no courthouse at Ash Flat and none of the Sharp County Governmental affairs or offices have been conducted at or moved to Ash Flat, the court instructed said jury commissioners as it customarily had so instructed jury commissioners for the Northern District of Sharp County prior to the aforesaid Supreme Court decision of February 1, 1965 concerning their duties as such officials; that the court informed the jury commissioners as to the location of the line separating the Northern and Southern Judicial Districts of Sharp County and said Jury Commissioners were further informed of the aforesaid Act 110 of 1933 and that while thereunder the Northern and Southern Districts of Sharp County had coextensive jurisdiction in Circuit Courts, the commissioners could confine their jury selection to the area known as the Northern District but that if anyone residing South of the line separating said districts should be selected for jury service and if otherwise qualified, they would be eligible to serve as jurors in the Northern District.

That as shown by the list of jurors selected for the present term of the court, the greater part of the petit jurors so selected reside in the Northern District of the county and that only four were selected who resided in the Southern District.

That there was no systematic exclusion of person or group by the jury commissioners in their selection of persons for petit jury service for the present term of the court.

That the actions of the jury commissioners in their selection of petit jurors for this term of the court were proper and that none of the defendant's rights have been violated by their actions and the defendant's motion to quash the panel should be overruled.'

We think the motion to quash was properly overruled by the court in view of the provision of Ark.Stat.Ann. § 39--208 (Repl.1962) which is as follws:

'Preparation of lists of petit jurors and alternates--Indorsement of lists.--The commissioners shall also select from the electors of said county, or from the area constituting a division thereof where a county has two (2) or more districts for the conduct of circuit courts, not less than twenty-four (24) nor more than thirty-six (36) qualified electors, as the court may direct, having the qualification prescribed in Section...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Waddle v. Sargent
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 21, 1993
    ...recognized the propriety of an alternative place to holding court, where the court otherwise has jurisdiction, see Warren v. State, 241 Ark. 264, 407 S.W.2d 724 (1966); Mell v. State, 133 Ark. 197, 202 S.W. 33 (1918); Hudspeth v. State, 55 Ark. 323, 18 S.W. 183 (1892); and Lee v. State, 56 ......
  • Meyers v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1981
    ...29 (1883); Collins v. State, 200 Ark. 1027, 143 S.W.2d 1 (1940); Terry v. State, 149 Ark. 462, 233 S.W. 673 (1921); Warren v. State, 241 Ark. 264, 407 S.W.2d 724 (1966). Appellant's second point is that a mistrial should have been granted because during voir dire the prosecuting attorney sa......
  • Farrar v. State, 5218
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1966
  • Walker v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1966
    ...in this point. The same argument about the location of the Sharp Circuit Court was made and answered in the recent case of Warren v. State, Ark., 407 S.W.2d 724 (opinion delivered October 24, 1966); and reference is hereby made to that opinion for a full answer of appellant's II. Evidence O......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT