Brown v. The State
Decision Date | 04 April 1894 |
Docket Number | 17,227 |
Citation | 36 N.E. 1108,137 Ind. 240 |
Parties | Brown v. The State |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Bartholomew Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, with directions to the circuit court to sustain the appellant's motion for a new trial.
J. F Cox, for appellant.
A. G Smith, Attorney-General, F. W. Cady and D. L. Cady, for State.
The appellant was indicted in the Bartholomew Circuit Court upon a charge of murder in the first degree. A trial of the cause, by jury, resulted in a verdict of guilty, fixing the death penalty. Over a motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment on the verdict and named a day on which the sentence should be executed. From the judgment thus rendered, the appellant prosecutes this appeal and assigns as error:
First. That the circuit court erred in overruling a motion to quash the indictment.
Second. That the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.
The indictment is, substantially, such as has often been held sufficient by this court. It would unnecessarily encumber this opinion to set it out here, as no good purpose would be subserved thereby. We think it is a good indictment for murder in the first degree, and the court did not err in overruling a motion to quash it.
The trial of the cause began on the 12th day of December, 1893. The time of the court was consumed in hearing evidence from that date to the 15th day of the month. Without any objection the jury was permitted to separate at each adjournment of court. After hearing the evidence from nine o'clock in the forenoon until four thirty in the afternoon on Wednesday, the 13th day of the month, one of the jurors, about eight o'clock, and after court had adjourned for the day, became intoxicated and was known to be intoxicated up to ten o'clock of that evening. At the convening of court on the next morning, the juror was in his seat, and remained on the jury and assisted in making the verdict against the appellant.
It is contended by the appellant that this was such irregularity and misconduct on the part of the jury as vitiates the verdict. It is said that the misconduct of one juror, so far as it may affect the verdict in contemplation of law, is the misconduct of all. Moore's Crim. Law, section 417.
It seems to be well settled in this State, as well as in other jurisdictions, that drinking intoxicating liquor during the recess of the court is not such misconduct of the jury as vitiates the verdict, unless the drinking is to such an extent as to produce intoxication; but where a juror drinks to such an extent as to become intoxicated, such conduct renders the verdict invalid, and the court, upon proof of such misconduct, should set it aside and grant a new trial. Creek v. State, 24 Ind. 151; Davis v. State, 35 Ind. 496; Huston v. Vail, 51 Ind. 299; Pratt v. State, 56 Ind. 179; Carter v. Ford, etc., Co., 85 Ind. 180; Pelham v. Page, 6 Ark. 535; 4 Crim. Law Mag., sections 10 and 11; State v. Cucuel, 24 N.J.L. 249; Jones v. State, 13 Tex. 168.
In the case of Ryan v. Harrow, 27 Iowa 494, the court declined to enter into the question as to whether the juror drank to intoxication, but said:
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial