# Rector v. State > Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 17, 1983 · 280 Ark. 385 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665321 ## Case - **Full name:** Ricky Ray RECTOR v. STATE of Arkansas - **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas - **Decided:** October 17, 1983 - **Citations:** 280 Ark. 385; 659 S.W.2d 168; 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1527 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Purtle - **Judges:** George Rose Smith - **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665321 ## Opinion text John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. I concur in the results of the opinion of this court but wish to comment on a portion of the opinion dealing with death qualified juries. The majority correctly states that persons who are unalterably opposed to the imposition of the death penalty should be excluded and I agree. I think Witherspoon is in accord with this view. The mistake made in some trial courts is in excluding persons who have moral or religious scruples against the death penalty but who would agree to impose it if the law and the circumstances warrant it in the case being tried. Witherspoon never intended to exclude this type juror. Neither did it indicate that only those who favored the death penalty should comprise trial juries. I think the correct procedure on this controversial issue lies somewhere between excluding prospective jurors who have scruples against the death sentence and including only those who have no scruples against imposing such a penalty. There is a readily apparent difference in the probable verdict of a jury composed of 12 people having scruples against the death penalty and 12 others who unquestionably favor it. It takes a mixing from both categories to form a jury which is representative of the community. Only those unalterably opposed to the death penalty and those who actively support it should be excluded from serving when death is the possible penalty. I have never thought that all or even most people who favor the death penalty are barbarians in modern society. However, I do feel that a j ury composed of only such persons is not representative of any community. Neither would a jury composed only of those having scruples against the death penalty represent the community. The selection of jurors should not favor the accused nor should it favor the state. A properly selected jury enters upon its duties slanted toward neither side. Thus selected, it would not be proper to refer to the jury as a death qualified one. This controversy would disappear if the sentencing process utilized a different jury from the one which decided the question of guilt. This could be accomplished by either having a second jury or allowing the trial court to impose sentence. A second jury would be asked to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and vote on sentencing the person found guilty. In either event the law and our procedure would have to be amended to provide for such a process. Appellant’s trial was conducted in accordance with present law and procedure. The majority states the most cowardly and contemptible criminals are the ones who seek to prevent a death qualified jury. I am of the opinion that an accused is not considered to be a criminal, at least in the case being tried, until after he has been convicted. The right to an impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is not, in my opinion, a favored position not enjoyed by others. Everyone is entitled to the protection of our Constitution. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9665321. Public record. Not legal advice.