State v. Brown

577 S.W.2d 163, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2744
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 29, 1979
DocketNo. KCD 29876
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 577 S.W.2d 163 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Brown, 577 S.W.2d 163, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2744 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was, by jury, convicted of assault with intent to kill with malice aforethought. Sentence was set at twenty eight years. Sufficiency of the evidence is not questioned by Appellant and he raises two points on appeal.

I

“The trial court erred in overruling Appellant’s motion to quash jury panel insofar as Jackson County’s procedure for selection of jury panels allows women an automatic exemption which denies the accused his right to a jury composed of a representative cross section of society, thus denying Appellant his Sixth Amendment rights.”

[164]*164II

“The trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury upon the offense of assault with intent to kill without malice as such is a lesser-included offense of assault with intent to kill with malice and such an instruction was warranted by the evidence adduced at trial; failure to so instruct was reversible error.”

While the first point raised by Appellant has been before the court before and heretofore has been held to be without merit, it is necessary to note herein that the parties prior to trial stipulated as to jury selection procedures within Jackson County, Missouri and that these procedures were in conformity with Art. I, § 22(b) and § 494.031, RSMo 1969. In the case of State v. Duren, 556 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1977), however, pursuant to a Writ of Certiorari, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that Art. I, § 22(b) of the Missouri Constitution and § 494.031, RSMo 1969 are violative of an accused’s rights by reason of its systematic exclusion of women as prospective jurors, thus denying an accused a right to a jury composed of a representative cross-section of society under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Duren v. Missouri, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979).1

This cause is reversed and remanded to the trial court for retrial upon the issues without consideration to further points raised on this appeal.

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

Related

State v. Farris
585 S.W.2d 303 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
State v. Clark
583 S.W.2d 300 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
State v. Nevels
581 S.W.2d 138 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)
State v. McReynolds
581 S.W.2d 465 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
577 S.W.2d 163, 1979 Mo. App. LEXIS 2744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-moctapp-1979.