Harlin v. Missouri

Supreme Court

Harlin v. Missouri

439 U.S. 459, 99 S. Ct. 709, 58 L. Ed. 2d 733, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 53

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 15, 1979

Docket77-6062

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 439 U.S. 459 (Harlin v. Missouri) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harlin v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 459, 99 S. Ct. 709, 58 L. Ed. 2d 733, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 53 (1979).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

On appeal of his criminal conviction to the Supreme Court of Missouri, petitioner contended that his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community had been denied by provisions of Missouri law allowing any woman who so elects to be excused from jury service. See Mo. Const., Art. 1, §22 (b); Mo. Rev. Stat. §494.031 (2) (Supp. 1975). The record did not reflect that petitioner had raised this objection in timely fashion in the trial court, but because the trial court had considered and rejected the contention on its merits in connection with petitioner’s motion for a new trial, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the issue under its “plain error” rule. Relying on its decision in State v. Duren, 556 S. W. 2d 11 (1977), that court rejected petitioner’s contention that the challenged provisions are invalid because they systematically exclude women from the jury-selection process. 556 S. W. 2d 42, 44 (1977). The highest state court having reached and decided this issue, its judgment is subject to review in this Court. See Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153, 157 (1974). The petition for certiorari is granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The [460]*460judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Duren v. Missouri, ante, p. 357.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.

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

Per Curiam.

On appeal of his criminal conviction to the Supreme Court of Missouri, petitioner contended that his constitutional right to a jury drawn from a fair cross section of the community had been denied by provisions of Missouri law allowing any woman who so elects to be excused from jury service. See Mo. Const., Art. 1, §22 (b); Mo. Rev. Stat. §494.031 (2) (Supp. 1975). The record did not reflect that petitioner had raised this objection in timely fashion in the trial court, but because the trial court had considered and rejected the contention on its merits in connection with petitioner’s motion for a new trial, the Missouri Supreme Court reviewed the issue under its “plain error” rule. Relying on its decision in State v. Duren, 556 S. W. 2d 11 (1977), that court rejected petitioner’s contention that the challenged provisions are invalid because they systematically exclude women from the jury-selection process. 556 S. W. 2d 42, 44 (1977). The highest state court having reached and decided this issue, its judgment is subject to review in this Court. See Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U. S. 153, 157 (1974). The petition for certiorari is granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The [460]*460judgment below is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of Duren v. Missouri, ante, p. 357.

So ordered.

Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 U.S. 459, 99 S. Ct. 709, 58 L. Ed. 2d 733, 1979 U.S. LEXIS 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harlin-v-missouri-scotus-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack