Connors v. United States

Citation158 U.S. 408,15 S.Ct. 951,39 L.Ed. 1033
Decision Date20 May 1895
Docket NumberNo. 512,512
PartiesCONNORS v. UNITED STATES
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

E. T. Wells, M. F. Taylor, and M. B. Gerry, for plaintiff in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.

Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an indictment in the district court of the United States for the district of Colorado under section 5511 of the Revised Statutes, providing: 'If, at any election for represen- tative or delegate in congress, any person knowingly personates and votes, or attempts to vote, in the name of any other person, whether living, dead, or fictitious; or votes more than once at the same election for any candidate for the same office; or votes at a place where he may not be lawfully entitled to vote; or votes without having a lawful right to vote; or does any unlawful act to secure an opportunity to vote for himself, or any other person; or by force, threat, intimidation, bribery, reward, or offer thereof, unlawfully prevents any qualified voter of any state, or of any territory, from freely exercising the right of suffrage, or by any such means induces any voter to refuse to exercise such right, or compels, or induces, by any such means, any officer of an election in such state or territory to receive a vote from a person not legally qualified or entitled to vote; or interferes in any manner with any officer of such election in the discharge of his duties; or by any such means, or other unlawful means, induces any officer of an electo n or officer whose duty it is to ascertain, announce, or declare the result of any such election, or give or make any certificate, document, or evidence in relation thereto, to violate or refuse to comply with his duty or any law regulating the same; or knowingly receives the vote of any person not entitled to vote, or refuses to receive the vote of any person entitled to vote; or aids, counsels, procures, or advises any such voter, person, or officer to do any act hereby made a crime, or attempts to do so, he shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment not more than three years, or by both, and shall pay the costs of the prosecution.'

The indictment charged that on the 4th day of November, 1890, at the county of Arapahoe, state of Colorado, the accused, James Connors, 'did unlawfully interfere with the judges of election of the Eighteenth voting precinct in said county of Arapahoe, in the discharge of their duties, which said judges of election were then and there officers of the election for representative in the Fifty-Second congress of the United States, in accordance with the laws of the state of Colorado and of the United States, and did then and there unlawfully and with force and arms seize, carry away, and secrete the ballot box containing the ballots of said Eighteenth voting precinct, which on said 4th day of November, in the year aforesaid, at said election, had been cast for said representative in congress, and did then and there knowingly aid and assist in the forcible and unlawful seizure, carrying away, and secreting of said ballot box, and did then and there counsel, advise, and procure divers other persons, whose names are to the grand jurors unknown, so to seize, carry away, and secrete said ballot box, thereby, as aforesaid, interfering with said judges of election of said Eighteenth voting precinct, and hindering and preventing them, the said judges of election, from counting the votes which had been cast at said election, and from declaring and certifying the result thereof.'

Motions to quash the indictment, to arrest the judgment, and for a new trial were made and overruled, and there was a verdict of guilty, upon which the court sentenced the accused to imprisonment in the house of correction at Detroit, in the state of Michigan, for the period of 15 months, to be fed and clothed there as the law directs.

1. The first assignment of error questions the sufficiency of the indictment in that it charges the accused, as he insists, with three distinct offenses in one count, namely: With having unlawfully and with force and arms seized, carried away, and secreted the ballot box containing the ballots cast at the election named; with having aided and assisted in the forcible and unlawful seizure, carrying away, and secreting of such ballot box; and with having counseled, advised, and procured the seizure, carrying away, and secreting of the ballots at said election.

This objection to the indictment is not well taken. The offense charged was that of unlawfully interfering with the officers of the election in the discharge of their duties. Their duty was to ascertain and disclose the result of the election. That duty could not be performed without inspection of the ballots. Seizing, carrying away, and secreting the ballot box containing the ballots cast for representative in congress necessarily interfered with the discharge of that duty. The indictment describes—perhaps with unnecessary particularity—the mode in which the crime charged was committed. If the accused himself unlawfully seized, carried away, and secreted the ballot box, or if he knowingly aided and assisted others in doing so, or if he counseled, advised, and procured others to do so, in either case he was guilty of the crime of having unlawfully interfered with the officers of election in the discharge of their duties. The verdict of guilty had reference to that crime, whether committed in one or the other of the mods specified in the indictment. Undoubtedly, it was in the discretion of the court to compel the prosecutor to state whether he would proceed against the accused for having himself seized, carried away, and secreted the ballot box, or for having assisted or procured others to do so. But there was no motion to require the prosecutor to make such a statement. If the objection now urged could have been taken by motion to quash the indictment, it is sufficient to say that, although the record shows that there was such a motion, the grounds of it are not stated. So far as the record discloses, the specific objection now urged was made for the first time after verdict by a motion in arrest of judgment. But such an objection, not made until after verdict, would not justify an arrest of judgment, and is not available on writ of error. 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. §§ 442, 443; Whart. Cr. Pl. § 255. Nor, if made by demurrer or by motion, and overruled, would it avail on error unless it appeared that the substantial rights of the accused were prejudiced by the refusal of the court to require a more restricted or specific statement of the particular mode in which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
221 cases
  • Dickey v. Davis
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 13 d5 Janeiro d5 2017
    ...sound discretion.’ " Ristaino v. Ross , 424 U.S. 589, 594, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976), quoting Connors v. United States , 158 U.S. 408, 413, 15 S.Ct. 951, 39 L.Ed. 1033 (1895). "[T]he trial court retains great latitude in deciding what questions should be asked on voir dire." Mu'M......
  • Bolin v. Chappell
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • 9 d4 Junho d4 2016
    ...a great deal must, of necessity, be left to its sound discretion.'" Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594 (1976) (quoting Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 413 (1895)). "[T]he trial court retains great latitude in deciding what questions should be asked on voir dire." Mu'Min, 500 U.S. a......
  • Stevens v. State, No. 2000-DP-00507-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 13 d4 Setembro d4 2001
    ...citing Ristaino v. Ross, 424 U.S. 589, 594, 96 S.Ct. 1017, 1020, 47 L.Ed.2d 258 (1976)) (quoting Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 413, 15 S.Ct. 951, 953, 39 L.Ed. 1033 (1895)). See also Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263, 1274 (Miss.1994). This Court has stated that the trial court shou......
  • Huguely v. Clarke
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • 21 d1 Dezembro d1 2020
    ...the court conducting the process and "a great deal must, of necessity, be left to its sound discretion." Connors v. United States , 158 U.S. 408, 413, 15 S.Ct. 951, 39 L.Ed. 1033 (1895).Cases in which a trial court's refusal to ask a particular line of questions required a new trial are exc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Why Batson Misses the Point
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-5, July 2012
    • 1 d0 Julho d0 2012
    ...the supervision of the court, and a great deal must, of necessity, be left to its sound discretion.’” (quoting Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 413 (1895))). 13. Id. at 594–95. 14. Id. at 595–96 (stating that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to voir dire regarding racial p......
  • U.S. military courts and the war in Iraq.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 39 No. 3, May 2006
    • 1 d1 Maio d1 2006
    ...Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 125 S. Ct. 2611, 2618 (2005). (242.) U.S. CONST. amend. VI. See Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 413 (1895) (A defendant is "entitled to be tried by an impartial jury; that is, by jurors who had no bias or prejudice that would prevent the......
  • Selling Influence: Using Advertising to Prejudice the Jury Pool
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 83, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...even be present during an attorney-conducted voir dire in a civil trial. See Landsman, supra, at 219. 225.See Connors v. United States, 158 U.S. 408, 413 (1895) (stating that voir dire "is conducted under the supervision of the court, and a great deal must, of necessity, be left to its soun......
  • Jury selection: the juror elimination approach
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Innovative DUI Trial Tools
    • 1 d6 Maio d6 2021
    ...be able to impartially to follow the court’s instructions and evaluate the evidence cannot be fulfilled. See Connors v. United States , 158 U.S. 408, 413, 15 S.Ct. 951, 953, 39 L.Ed. 1033 (1895). Similarly, lack of adequate voir dire impairs the defendant’s right to exercise peremptory chal......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT