State v. Haywood

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Haywood

607 S.W.2d 850, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3207

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 4, 1980

DocketNo. WD 30294

StatusPublished

This text of 607 S.W.2d 850 (State v. Haywood) 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. Haywood, 607 S.W.2d 850, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3207 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

TURNAGE, Presiding Judge.

Daniel Haywood was found guilty by a jury of stealing property with a value of at least $50 and sentenced to two years in prison.

The decisive issue raised on this appeal is the failure of the jury to have been selected from a fair cross section of the community in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The method of jury selection in Jackson County was found to be unconstitutional in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Although Haywood did not raise this point in the trial court and raises it for the first time in this court as plain error, such procedure is permissible under State v. Williams, 595 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.1980) and State v. Johnson, 606 S.W.2d 624, (Mo. banc 1980), because the jury in this case was selected and impaneled on May 1, 1978.

For the reasons fully set out in Williams and Johnson, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. The other points raised need not arise on re-trial and in any event the parties are advised of those matters and may govern themselves accordingly on a new trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

SHANGLER, J., concurs.

MANFORD, J., concurs in result in separate concurring opinion.

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

TURNAGE, Presiding Judge.

Daniel Haywood was found guilty by a jury of stealing property with a value of at least $50 and sentenced to two years in prison.

The decisive issue raised on this appeal is the failure of the jury to have been selected from a fair cross section of the community in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The method of jury selection in Jackson County was found to be unconstitutional in Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Although Haywood did not raise this point in the trial court and raises it for the first time in this court as plain error, such procedure is permissible under State v. Williams, 595 S.W.2d 378 (Mo.App.1980) and State v. Johnson, 606 S.W.2d 624, (Mo. banc 1980), because the jury in this case was selected and impaneled on May 1, 1978.

For the reasons fully set out in Williams and Johnson, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial. The other points raised need not arise on re-trial and in any event the parties are advised of those matters and may govern themselves accordingly on a new trial.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

SHANGLER, J., concurs.

MANFORD, J., concurs in result in separate concurring opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 S.W.2d 850, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 3207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-haywood-moctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack