recognizing trial court implicitly overruled defendant's objection to jury shuffle by granting State's motion to shuffle
How later courts described this case
- recognizing trial court implicitly overruled defendant's objection to jury shuffle by granting State's motion to shuffle
- ruling on defendant's objection to second jury shuffle occurred when court granted State's motion to shuffle venire
- holding defendant’s objection to jury shuffle was overruled when trial court granted State’s motion to shuffle
- finding automatic reversible error where statute allowing only one jury shuffle was violated
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
The purpose of a shuffle is to assure the random selection and seating of prospective jurors. The refusal of a shuffle to which a defendant is entitled presumes harm since the random selection is not assured. Here, however, such harm cannot be presumed since the random selection we require has been satisfied. Since there is no possibility that the appellant was injured by the second shuffle, the error, if any, was harmless.
I respectfully dissent.
OVERSTREET, J., joins this dissent.