Home/Tennessee Supreme Court/Grooms v. State

Grooms v. State

426 S.W.2d 176, 221 Tenn. 243, 25 McCanless 243, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 459
CourtTennessee Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 18, 1968
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 426 S.W.2d 176 (Grooms v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Tennessee Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grooms v. State, 426 S.W.2d 176, 221 Tenn. 243, 25 McCanless 243, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 459 (Tenn. 1968).

Opinion

*244 PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs in error, Furman Junior Grooms and Wilbur Stinnett, appeal from a conviction of burglary and larceny. In this case the Court is confronted with the minutes of the trial court which affirmatively show plaintiffs in error were convicted by a jury of thirteen members. Since this will require reversal of the judgment of conviction, we do not deem it necessary to go into the facts of this case.

The right of trial by jury is governed by Article 1, Section 6 of our Constitution, which is as follows:

The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate, and no religious or political test shall ever be required as a qualification for jurors.

This constitutional provision has been held to mean a trial by “twelve good and lawful men.” Neely v. State, 63 Tenn. 174 (1874). A conviction by an eleven-man jury is invalid. Bowles v. State, 37 Tenn. 360 (1858); Bell v. State, 37 Tenn. 507 (1857). In Willard v. State, 174 Tenn. 642, 130 S.W.2d 99 (1939), this Court, in regard to this constitutional provision said:

Our decisions hold that this constitutional provision protects the right of trial by jury only as it existed at common law in so- far as it had been adopted and was in force in North Carolina, when the territory embraced in Tennessee was ceded by North Carolina to *245 the Federal Government. (Citing* cases.) The right of trial by jury is the right guaranteed to every litigant in jury cases to have the facts involved tried and determined by twelve jurors. 174 Term, at 645, 130 S.W.2d at 100.

A criminal conviction is just as invalid if tried by a jury of more than twelve members as it is when tried by a jury of less than twelve members.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Dale Qualls
482 S.W.3d 1 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2016)
State v. Hanson
279 S.W.3d 265 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2009)
STATE of Tennessee v. Phedrek T. DAVIS
266 S.W.3d 896 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2008)
Jeremy Flax v. Daimler-Chrysler Corporation
272 S.W.3d 521 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2008)
State v. Lemacks
996 S.W.2d 166 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1999)
State v. Malady
952 S.W.2d 440 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1996)
Newport Housing Authority v. Ballard
839 S.W.2d 86 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1992)
State v. Brown
823 S.W.2d 576 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1991)
State v. Bobo
814 S.W.2d 353 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1991)
State v. Jones
623 S.W.2d 129 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1981)
Seelbach v. State
572 S.W.2d 267 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1978)
Wheeler v. State
539 S.W.2d 812 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1976)
Shrader v. State
472 S.W.2d 916 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1971)
Advisory Opinion to the Senate
278 A.2d 852 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1971)
Brown v. State
470 S.W.2d 39 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1971)
Gant v. State
466 S.W.2d 518 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1969)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
426 S.W.2d 176, 221 Tenn. 243, 25 McCanless 243, 1968 Tenn. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grooms-v-state-tenn-1968.