Bryan v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1905
• Citation: 52 S.E. 298,124 Ga. 79
• Parties: BRYAN v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

52 S.E. 298

124 Ga. 79

BRYAN v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 9, 1905

Syllabus by the Court.

A challenge to the array is an objection to all the jurors collectively because of some defect in the panel as a whole.

Where it was contended that certain members of the jury whose names appeared on the panel had just before been members of a jury who had found a verdict of guilty against another person charged with gaming while playing in the same game involved in the charge against the defendant, the point should have been raised by a challenge to the polls, and not to the array.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; Geo. T. Cann, Judge.

G. D Bryan, Jr., was convicted of gaming, and brings error. Affirmed.

Twiggs & Oliver, for plaintiff in error.

W. W Osborne, Sol. Gen., for the State.

LUMPKIN J. (after stating the facts).

A challenge to the array is an objection to all the jurors collectively because of some defect in the panel as a whole. If some of the jurors included in the panel are not impartial, this cannot be properly reached by a challenge to the array, but by a challenge to the polls. Upon proper challenge of a juror on the ground that he was a member of the jury on a previous trial involving the same transaction the court will investigate the question, and if the juror be found incompetent, he will be set aside for cause. The motion for a new trial states that "for this reason this defendant challenged the array thus put upon him, upon the ground that the said panel did not contain an impartial jury and asked the court to discharge said ten jurors, and fill the panel with ten impartial jurors." But in the order overruling the motion for a new trial the presiding judge made the following statement: "In connection with the additional grounds of the motion, it is proper to state that the challenge to the array was oral. There was no challenge to the poll, nor request to examine any juror upon his voir dire; no particular juror was challenged." It thus appears that the challenge was made to the array, instead of to the polls. See Pen. Code, § 972; Eberhart v. State, 47 Ga. 598; Blackman v. State, 80 Ga. 785, 7 S.E. 626; Schnell v. State, 92 Ga. 459, 17 S.E. 966; Thompson v. State, 109 Ga. 272, 34 S.E. 579; Teal v. State, 119 Ga. 102, 45 S.E. 964; Crew v. State, 113 Ga. 645, 38 S.E. 941; Wells v. State, 102 Ga. 658, 29 S.E. 442; Brown v. State, 104 Ga. 736, 30 S.E. 951; ...