{
  "id": 1709265,
  "name": "Alan Wade JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1980-10-22",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 80-38",
  "first_page": "871",
  "last_page": "873",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 Ark. 871"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "606 S.W.2d 381"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 633",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616728
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0633-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 3912,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.921454832095468e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36985322310296853
    },
    "sha256": "fe080db688ea95ebe776034ef5140294337c52d6eeb3ee5379412846c4e2dd19",
    "simhash": "1:2d2d12767312247c",
    "word_count": 673
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:39.197564+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Alan Wade JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Howard, Jr., Judge.\nAppellant was found guilty, by a jury, of the offense of second degree escape; and he was sentenced to the Arkansas Department of Correction for a term of three years.\nAppellant seeks reversal of his conviction on the sole ground that the trial court erred in failing to excuse a juror, Mrs. Janis Kerr, for cause.\nDuring voir dire of the jury panel, Mrs. Kerr, the wife of an assistant police chief of the North Little Rock Police Department, was asked \u201c[w]hether you could go home and tell him [her husband] you found somebody not guilty charged with a crime and not cause any problems at home?\u201d In reply, Mrs. Kerr stated \u201cI\u2019ve served on another jury before. I believe I would listen to the evidence and find accordingly.\u201d\nHaving exhausted all of his peremptory challenges, appellant moved that Mrs. Kerr be excused for cause based on \u201can implied bias.\u201d The trial court denied appellant\u2019s motion.\nAppellant argues in his brief:\n\u201cAppellant is not asking this court to rule that the wife of a law enforcement officer is automatically disqualified from criminal trial jury service. Rather he is asking that such a person be more positive about not carrying any prejudice into the jury box.\u201d\nThe appellant concludes his argument by asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in not excusing Mrs. Kerr; that Mrs. Kerr\u2019s response displayed enough actual bias to preclude her from jury service under Pickens v. State, 260 Ark. 633, 542 S.W. 2d 764 (1976).\nIn Pickens, a juror, on voir dire, testified that he had a nephew who was a police lieutenant in Los Angeles; and that he possessed preconceived notions about the guilt or innocence of a defendant accused of narcotics violations; that those preconceived notions were based upon what he had heard from his nephew who was an undercover agent in narcotics. When the juror was pressed to state whether his opinion concerning drug cases would influence his verdict in the case in which he had been called as a prospective juror, which involved a charge of sale and delivery of a controlled substance, the juror responded \u201cI don\u2019t think so.\u201d When asked further whether he would give more weight or credibility to a drug undercover agent than he would to any other witness simply because he was a drug undercover officer, the juror replied, \u201cI don\u2019t think that I would.\u201d\nIt is plain that Pickens is not on all fours with the instant case. Mrs. Kerr at no time acknowledged that she had any preconceived notions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case. The substance of the question posed to Mrs. Kerr was whether she would encounter any problems at home if she voted not guilty on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt. Her reply was: \u201cI have served on a jury before and I believe I would listen to the evidence and make a finding based upon that evidence.\u201d\nMoreover, in Pickens, the Court found that the juror\u2019s initial response created a presumptive bias which was not overcome by the rehabilitative efforts of the trial court; for there was still evidence of residual prejudice in the juror\u2019s responses which justified a finding that the juror should have been excused for cause.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 39-105(e) (Repl. 1962 and Supp. 1979), provides, in relevant part, that no person shall serve as a petit juror in any case who:\n\u201cIs biased or prejudiced for or against any party to the cause or is prevented by any relationship or circumstance from acting impartially; . . .\u201d\nAppellant has not demonstrated that Mrs. Kerr possessed any preconceived notions about appellant\u2019s guilt or that she harbored any prejudices in any way as a juror.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Howard, Jr., Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Alvin Schay, State Appellate Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: C. R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Alan Wade JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 80-38\n606 S.W. 2d 381\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 22, 1980\nE. Alvin Schay, State Appellate Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: C. R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0871-01",
  "first_page_order": 899,
  "last_page_order": 901
}