reversing and remanding but recognizing that 10 record was insufficient to demonstrate Batson error, e.g., the prosecutor’s proffered racially neutral explanation of “past performance” lacked details
How later courts described this case
- reversing and remanding but recognizing that 10 record was insufficient to demonstrate Batson error, e.g., the prosecutor’s proffered racially neutral explanation of “past performance” lacked details
- reversing conviction where defendant was tried before a jury of only six members rather than twelve
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting.
Grinning relies on Calnan v. State, 310 Ark. 744 , 841 S.W.2d 593 (1992) and Winkle v. State, 310 Ark. 713 , 841 S.W.2d 589 (1992) in arguing that the contemporaneous objection rule is inapplicable. I disagree. Both Calnan and Winkle involve cases in which no jury was provided. The court in Calnan relied in part on an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule, which allows for an exception when a trial court should intervene on its own motion to correct a serious error. The serious error was the total absence of a jury; that simply is not the issue in the case before us here. In both Winkle and Calnan an issue addressed was whether there had been a waiver of the right to a jury trial. The issue here simply does not go so far. We should affirm.
Jesson, C.J., and Brown, J., join this dissent.