Adams v. State, No. 27053.

Docket NºNo. 27053.
Citation214 Ind. 603, 17 N.E.2d 84
Case DateNovember 01, 1938
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

214 Ind. 603
17 N.E.2d 84

ADAMS
v.
STATE.

No. 27053.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 1, 1938.


Ralph Adams was convicted of second degree murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

[17 N.E.2d 84]

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Chas. B. Staff, Special judge.
T. Ernest Maholm, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Omer Stokes Jackson, Atty. Gen., and James K. Northam, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.


FANSLER, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of murder in the second degree.

At the impaneling of the grand jury, which returned the indictment upon which appellant was tried, he appeared and objected to the impaneling unless the jurors took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana. Afterward, by plea in abatement and by other pleadings, he questioned the legality of the jury upon the ground that they had taken only the statutory oath, and had not taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Indiana. Adverse rulings on these various pleadings are assigned as error.

The Constitution of the United States provides, by article 6, clause 3, U.S.C.A.Const. art. 6, cl. 3, that: ‘The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.’ Article 15, § 4, of the Constitution of Indiana, provides that: ‘Every person elected or appointed to any office under this constitution, shall, before entering on the duties thereof, take an oath or affirmation, to support the Constitution of this State, and of the United States, and also an oath of office.’

It is appellant's contention that a grand juror is a judicial officer, and an officer under the Constitution of Indiana.

A trial by jury is not a trial by judicial officers, but a trial per pais or by the country. The jurors, limited in number generally to twelve in modern times,

[17 N.E.2d 85]

act for the body of the people of the county (pro corpore comitatus). But the proceedings of a grand jury are not a trial. Blackstone says: ‘The finding of an indictment is only in the nature of an inquiry or accusation, which is afterwards to be tried and determined; and the grand jury are only to inquire upon their oaths; whether there be sufficient cause to call upon the party to answer it.’ In this country, the sovereign is the people,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • In re Neff, No. 10947.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 30, 1953
    ...1933, 164 Md. 558, 166 A. 45, 88 A.L.R. 886; State v. Lawler, 1936, 221 Wis. 423, 267 N.W. 65, 105 A.L.R. 568; Adams v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 603, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. 6 Temple v. Commonwealth, 1881, 75 Va. 892; Ex parte Sales, 1933, 134 Cal.App. 54, 24 P.2d 916; Duckworth v. District C......
  • Sisk v. State, No. 28821
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 20, 1953
    ...court must allow or disallow the challenge.' It is well settled that the proceedings of a grand jury is not a trial. Adams v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 603, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. Appellant asserts that the failure to take him before the grand jury prior to their being sworn was a violation o......
  • Watts v. State, No. 28447.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 29, 1948
    ...were given,’ It will be presumed that the instruction so tendered and refused, was covered by other instructions. Adams v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 603, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. 1095. The next question presented is that the appellant was compelled to answer certain questions over the objection......
  • Swain v. State, No. 27134.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 9, 1939
    ...This court has decided that such oaths are not required. Foreman v. State, Ind.Sup.1938, 14 N.E.2d 546;Adams v. State, Ind.Sup.1938, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. 1095. Mindful as we are of the responsibility that rests upon this court to see that appellant is not denied his constitutional right......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • In re Neff, No. 10947.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • July 30, 1953
    ...1933, 164 Md. 558, 166 A. 45, 88 A.L.R. 886; State v. Lawler, 1936, 221 Wis. 423, 267 N.W. 65, 105 A.L.R. 568; Adams v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 603, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. 6 Temple v. Commonwealth, 1881, 75 Va. 892; Ex parte Sales, 1933, 134 Cal.App. 54, 24 P.2d 916; Duckworth v. District C......
  • Sisk v. State, No. 28821
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 20, 1953
    ...court must allow or disallow the challenge.' It is well settled that the proceedings of a grand jury is not a trial. Adams v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 603, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. Appellant asserts that the failure to take him before the grand jury prior to their being sworn was a violation o......
  • Watts v. State, No. 28447.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 29, 1948
    ...were given,’ It will be presumed that the instruction so tendered and refused, was covered by other instructions. Adams v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 603, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. 1095. The next question presented is that the appellant was compelled to answer certain questions over the objection......
  • Swain v. State, No. 27134.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 9, 1939
    ...This court has decided that such oaths are not required. Foreman v. State, Ind.Sup.1938, 14 N.E.2d 546;Adams v. State, Ind.Sup.1938, 17 N.E.2d 84, 118 A.L.R. 1095. Mindful as we are of the responsibility that rests upon this court to see that appellant is not denied his constitutional right......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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