Ark. Code Ann. § 16-31-103 (2020)
Exemptions from service
Any person may be excused from serving as a grand or petit juror or a jury commissioner for such period as the court deems necessary or may have his service deferred to another specified term of court when the state of his health or that of his family reasonably requires his absence, or when, for any reason, his own interests or those of the public will, in the opinion of the court, be materially injured by his attendance.
History. Acts 1969, No. 568, §§ 7, 8; 1971, No. 374, § 1; 1975, No. 650, § 16; 1979, No. 612, § 1; 1981, No. 294, §§ 1, 2; 1985, No. 291, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 39-107, 39-108, 39-121, 39-122, 72-1147; Acts 1991, No. 379, § 1; 1993, No. 167, § 1.
Amendments. The 1993 amendment inserted “or may have his service deferred to another specified term of court.”
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Legislative Survey, Civil Procedure, 8 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 555.
Survey—Civil Procedure, 14 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 747.
Case Notes
Automatic Excusal.
The automatic excusal of 12 jurors and an alternate in one lot, however laudable the trial court's intention may have been to spare the previous jury a second consecutive trial and however well-known or established the court's policy may have been, it amounted to a systematic exclusion to exempt as a body the 13 jurors and, as such, was error. Jones v. State, 318 Ark. 704, 889 S.W.2d 706 (1994).
Discretion of Court.
Court did not abuse its discretion by allowing possible jurors to be excused for reasons stated in this section, where there was no deliberate exclusion of a large class of eligible jurors. Miller v. State, 269 Ark. 341, 605 S.W.2d 430 (1980), cert. denied, Miller v. Arkansas, 450 U.S. 1035, 101 S. Ct. 1750 (1981), superseded by statute as stated in, Ruiz v. Norris, 868 F. Supp. 1471 (E.D. Ark. 1994).
Trial court properly excused persons from the jury venire, without affording trial counsel a chance to voir dire them with respect to the reasons they did not wish to serve, since the trial court has the discretion to excuse any juror to protect the public interest or the court's interests. Collins v. State, 271 Ark. 825, 611 S.W.2d 182, cert. denied, 452 U.S. 973, 101 S. Ct. 3127 (1981); Race v. National Cashflow Sys., 30 Ark. App. 116, 783 S.W.2d 370 (1990).
A court's power to excuse jurors need not be exercised only for good cause shown; this section vests in the trial judge the discretion to excuse any juror. Ruiz v. Norris, 868 F. Supp. 1471 (E.D. Ark. 1994), aff'd, 71 F.3d 1404 (8th Cir. 1995).
Excusal Held Proper.
The trial court did not err in excusing one of the selected jurors to allow the juror to attend a job interview on the day scheduled for trial. Latham v. State, 318 Ark. 19, 883 S.W.2d 461 (1994).
Farmers.
The wholesale excusal from the venire of individuals who claim farming as their occupation is reversible error if it is automatic and based solely on that fact. Jones v. State, 317 Ark. 131, 876 S.W.2d 262, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 318 (1994).
Where trial judge noted that the farmers were harvesting their crop and would suffer extreme hardship if they served, the trial court further stated that the farmers were excused only after requesting to be excused “either orally before the court or through questionnaires,” there was not a wholesale dismissal of potential jury members based solely on occupation. Jones v. State, 317 Ark. 131, 876 S.W.2d 262, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 318 (1994).
While the wholesale excusal from the venire of persons who claim farming as their occupation is reversible error if it is automatic and based solely on that fact, when each farmer is considered on an individual basis and the trial court determines that each would suffer extreme hardship, no systematic exclusion has occurred. Jones v. State, 318 Ark. 704, 889 S.W.2d 706 (1994).
Objection to Service.
Disqualification was waived by the juror's failure to claim the excuse of being over 65 years of age. Edens v. State, 235 Ark. 178, 359 S.W.2d 432 (1962), cert. denied, Edens v. Arkansas, 371 U.S. 968, 83 S. Ct. 551 (1963) (decision under prior law).
This section does not provide for the automatic exclusion of persons within the classifications mentioned, but rather provides for exclusion if the individual objects to serving and makes the court aware of such objection before the jury is sworn. Penelton v. State, 277 Ark. 225, 640 S.W.2d 795 (1982).
Prejudice.
In cases involving alleged irregularities in the jury panel and its selection, the appellant must demonstrate prejudice as well as any error. Ruiz v. State, 299 Ark. 144, 772 S.W.2d 297 (1989).
Prejudice in jury selection is not presumed simply because error might have occurred; the basic issue decided by the appellate court on review is not whether it approves or disapproves of the procedure followed in jury selection, but whether there was prejudicial error. Race v. National Cashflow Sys., 30 Ark. App. 116, 783 S.W.2d 370 (1990).
Cited: Cotton v. State, 256 Ark. 527, 508 S.W.2d 738 (1974); Berna v. State, 282 Ark. 563, 670 S.W.2d 434 (1984); Gardner v. State, 296 Ark. 41, 754 S.W.2d 518 (1988).