Ark. Code Ann. § 16-32-105 (2020)

Case Notes

Construction.

This section, on its face, does not require the presence of the judge when the names are drawn. Marshall v. State, 316 Ark. 753, 875 S.W.2d 814 (1994).

Alternative Procedure.

Where the bailiff testified that he put the names in alphabetical order as a convenience to help him in locating the jurors and to help attorneys in matching the names with the jurors' information sheets, where the alphabetical listing was just as random and impartial as any other procedure, and where there was no hint that alphabetical order was chosen for a sinister purpose, in the absence of any showing whatever of possible prejudice, the trial judge was right in denying the motion to quash the panel. Welch v. State, 269 Ark. 208, 599 S.W.2d 717, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 996, 101 S. Ct. 535, 66 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1980).

Discrimination.

Fact that one of three jury commissioners testified that in selection of jurors he partly took into consideration whether selection of certain jurors would cause a hardship on them was not sufficient to establish that wage earners were systematically and unconstitutionally excluded from the jury so as to deprive defendant of a jury of his social and economic peers. Kimble v. State, 246 Ark. 407, 438 S.W.2d 705 (1969) (decision under prior law).

An accused in Arkansas has never had the right to have the jury commissioners select jurors in such a manner as to assure the accused of a jury from his own ethnic group or occupation. Pointer v. State, 248 Ark. 710, 454 S.W.2d 91 (1970), cert. denied, Pointer v. Arkansas, 400 U.S. 959, 91 S. Ct. 359 (1970) (decision under prior law).

Where the panel is drawn by chance from a jury wheel made up from a list of names taken from voter registration lists by jury commissioners appointed in accordance with statute and who were properly instructed to select jurors from a representative cross section of a county without discrimination as to race, the mere showing that the composition of a particular jury panel did not correspond to the racial makeup of the community did not in and of itself make a prima facie case of racial discrimination. One attacking the jury panel must show that there has been systematic and intentional exclusion of any particular group before the panel can be quashed on that account. Turner v. State, 258 Ark. 425, 527 S.W.2d 580 (1975) (decision under prior law).

Entry of Names in Jury Book.

Where names were withdrawn from the jury wheel for use by the chancery court, but had never been entered in the jury book, it was error not to quash the jury panel. Shelton v. State, 254 Ark. 815, 496 S.W.2d 419 (1973) (decision under prior law).

Where names of prospective jurors were recorded by circuit clerk on yellow legal pad instead of in jury book as required by this section, trial court properly denied defendant's motion to quash the jury panel because the motion was not timely presented at the pretrial conference but rather on the day of the trial. Beasley v. State, 258 Ark. 84, 522 S.W.2d 365 (1975) (decision under prior law).

The defendant was not prejudiced by the court clerk's practice of making a typewritten list of the names of jurors rather than recording the names in a jury book, where the typewritten list had been used all during that term of court and where defendant's objection to the list was not made until the morning of the trial. Huckaby v. State, 262 Ark. 413, 557 S.W.2d 875 (1977) (decision under prior law).

This section requires that the names be recorded in the jury book in the same order as they are drawn, but it does not specify the order in which they are to be summoned. Welch v. State, 269 Ark. 208, 599 S.W.2d 717, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 996, 101 S. Ct. 535, 66 L. Ed. 2d 294 (1980) (decision under prior law).

The failure to list the names in the jury book of the twenty-three veniremen who were excused from serving as jurors, or to record the reasons for their excusal, was not reversible error where the names were recorded in a file retained by the clerk, as well as the reasons for excusal in all but a single instance, on individual questionnaires, which were also kept in a separate file. Harrod v. State, 286 Ark. 277, 691 S.W.2d 172 (1985).

Motion to Quash Jury Venire.

Where 300 jury summonses were mailed to prospective jurors, the court clerk received 200 responses, a number of prospective jurors were excused based upon their responses, and only 63 prospective jurors appeared for jury selection, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to quash the jury panel because there was no suggestion that the discrepancy in the number of venire persons scheduled for jury service and the number that actually appeared was the result of any attempt to influence the makeup of the jury panel. Because there was substantial compliance with this section and the record did not reflect the wholesale excusal of any distinctive group of prospective jurors, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to quash the entire jury panel. Gwathney v. State, 2009 Ark. 544, 381 S.W.3d 744 (2009).

Cited: Brown v. Lockhart, 781 F.2d 654 (8th Cir. 1986).