ARk. ] HAMPTON V. STATE. 869 HAMPTON V. STATE. Crim. 3846
Opinion delivered September 25, 1933. JURY—PREVIOUS SERVICE.—A conviction in a felony case will be reversed where, over defendant's objection, a juror was permitted to serve who had within two years served on a grand or petit jury during a regular term of court. Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; J. 0. Kin-cannon, Judge; reversed.- • Hal L. Norivood, Attorney General, and John H. Caldwell, Assistant, for appellee. SMITH, J. At the trial frorn which this appeal comes appellant • soUght ,te challenge three citizen ' s who were present as .veniremen, for the reason that they had been meinbers . of a: regular panel within -two years prior. tO that date. Appellant had exhausted the challenges allowed him by law, and sought to challenge these venire-Men for the reaSon stated. The court denied his right to AO so, and. theSe jurors Served at the trial. Appellant was convicted, and has appealed. • .The Attorney. General: has confessed error, upon the authority of the case of Beavers v. State, ante p. 722, 61 S. W. (2d) 1113, in which case we . construed act 135 of the Acts of 1931, page 363, 'entitled, "An Act to regulate jury service." We there held that under this Act of 1931 it was ground for peremptory challenge that a juror had served on a regular panel of a petit jury- or of a grand jury within two years next preceding the time he is called for jury: service, arid that this disqualifiCation for- service applied to special jurors as well as to regular jurors. It is not service . as a special juror which disqUalifies. The persori rendered ineligible Under the Act of 1931 is one 'who has Served on a grand or petit jury during a regular term 'of Cenit, and thiS . ineligibility continues for two yearS thereafter,' and`for that period of time disqualifies for further jury service,' either as a regular or as a special juror. -
Appellant should have been permitted, therefore, to challenge these jurors, and the confession of error will be sustained,.and the judgment is , reversed and the cause remanded. for a 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.