722 -- BEAVERS V.- STATE. -__ [187 BEAVERS V. STATE. Crim. 3844 Opinion delivered July 3, 1933. 1. STATUTES—LEGISLATivE INTENTION. — Statutes must receive reasonable construction, and the courts should consider the purpose and intention of the Legislature in passing an act. 2. JURY—DISQUALIFICATION. — When a disqualification applies to jurors generally, it applies to a special juror as well as to members of the regular panel. 3. JURY—DISQUALIFICATION. — Acts 1931, No. 135, declaring ineligible for jury service every person who had served on either grand or petit jury oftener than one regular term of the circuit court every two years, was intended to exclude professional jurors, whether called on the regular panel or on a special case. 4. JURY—ACCEPTANCE OF DISQUALIFIED JURORS.—Acceptance, over accused's objection and after he had exhausted his challenges, of jurors who had served on the regular panel of either grand or - petit jury within 2 years before the trial held error, though they . were called as special jurors.
ARK.] BEAVERS V. STATE. 723 Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; J. 0. Kincan-non, Judge ; reversed. . Rains Rains, for appellant. Hal. L. Norwood, Attorney General, and John H. Caldwell, Assistant, for appellee. MEHAFFY, J. The appellant was convicted of transporting liquor, and fined $100. At the trial, after the appellant' had exhausted bis challenges, three citizens were called as jurors, T. J. James, Lee Bashafn and D. P. Selby. • • Each of these three citizens had served on the petit and grand juries of their county within two years next before the trial. Appellant challenged each of these jurors for cause before he was. accepted on the jury. 'His ground . of objection was that T. J. James had served on the regular panel of the petit jury within the last two years, and this was admitted by the juror. Lee Basham was Challenged for cause because he had served on the regular panel of the grand jury within the. last two years, and D. P. Selby was challenged for cause. on the ground that he had . served on the regular panel of the petit jury and grand jury within the last two years. • The challenges and objections to each of the jurors were overruled, and they were selected and served on the jury that tried appellant. The learned trial court held that they were compe-- tent jurors, as they were only called in as special jurors at this term of court. Act 135 of the Acts of 1931 entitled, "An Act to Regulate Jury Service," reads as follows : " Section 1. After ninety days from the passage and approval of this act no citizen in this 'State shall be eligible to serve on either grand or petit jury oftener than one regular term of the . circuit court, every two years. "Section 2. All laws and parts of laws in conflict herewith are hereby repealed and this act shall take . effect and be in force from and after its passage." This appeal is prosecuted to reverse the judgment of tbe circuit court.
724-BEAVERS V. STATE.-[187 • .The. Attorney General Confessed error on theground that the three jurors mentioned were not eligible to serve on the jury, and that it was error to accept them as jurors because each-of them had served on the regular panel of the circuit court -within two -years before. the trial: . . . After a careful examination of the record we have concluded .that the _confession of error is well taken. It was thought by, thes trial court that the act above copied made jurors ineligible to serve on the regular panel if they had served on a, regular panel in the circuit court within less than two years, but that it did not render them ineligible to service as special jurors._ Statutes must receive a reasonable construction, and courts should take into consideration the purpose of the Legislature in riassing the a - ct, and aseertain the inten-lion of the Legislature in passing the aef. The title' of the act, ."An Act fo Regulate Jury Ser: vice," paens, we thilik, 'what it says. No one 'is eligible for jury service if 'he has serVed on the regular panel of either grand or petit jury within two year§ of the time' he is called te serVe. The service of a special juror or a juror selected to serVe on one case is as important as the service on the regular panel, and 'there Would seem to be no reason: why a juror would be eligible to serVe on a case when' summoned specially, and not be eligible to serve on the regular panel. There seems to be some confliet in authority, but when the disqualification in terms applies to jurors gen, erally, it applies to a speciarjuror as well as members of the regular panel.' • 35 C. J. 253; City of Goshen v. England; 119 -Ind. 368; 21, Nv E. 977,-5 L. R.-253: The Stipreme Court of' Nebraska, in constrtiing statute regulating jury service said: "The statute . has made no exception in favor of talesmen, and we do not feel justified in making excepi. tions. The purpose of the statute seems to. be to exclude prof6sional jurymen, but, whether so or not, the language is plain and unambiguous. It is therefore a
good cause of challenge to one called as a juror .that he had been summoned and attended the district court as a juror at any term of court held within two years prior to the time of challenge, and this rule applies to those summoned as talesmen." Figg v. Donahoo, 4 Neb. Un-off. 661, 95 N. W. 10201Coil v. State, 62 Neb. 15, 86 N. W. 924. • It was the intention of the Legislature to exclude from jury service professional jurymen, and to exclude this class of jurors, whether called on the regular panel or to serve on a special case. We therefore think the trial court erred in not excusing the jurors mentioned, and the judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded_ for new trial.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.