Collins v. Burns

Citation26 P. 145,16 Colo. 7
PartiesCOLLINS v. BURNS.
Decision Date06 March 1891
CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

Appeal from district court, Pitkin county.

Markham & Dillon, for appellant.

Aaron Heims, for appellee.

HELM C.J.

The court did not err in overruling the challenges for cause to the jurors Hewitt and Tourtelotte. Hewitt had heard 'some of the facts.' Tourtelotte had 'heard of the case.' Hewitt, at the time he learned of the matters involved, formed 'a slight opinion,' but had since forgotten even the statements made to him. Tourtelotte formed and expressed a conditional opinion, which, however, did not concern the real merits of the controversy. Each swore upon his voir dire that he thought he could try the case fairly upon the evidence introduced at the trial, regardless of the opinion previously entertained. The statute does not make the forming, or even the expressing, of an opinion a decisive test as to the juror's competency, unless such opinion be 'unqualified * * * as to the merits of the action.' Civil Code, § 182. The object of the law in this as in all other respects is to secure fair and impartial trials. Intelligent citizens are sure to hear of cases, both civil and criminal, involving the public interest or welfare; and they are equally certain to base some sort of an opinion upon what they hear. It would be a travesty upon the administration of justice if every intelligent man were thus disqualified from sitting as a juror in such cases. The law fortunately does not involve this absurdity. It takes notice of the fact that intelligence, even when coupled with preconceived impressions, may award more impartial justice than ignorance, too often swayed by impulse or prejudice, and perhaps incapable of logical discrimination. Hence a large discretion, to be carefully exercised for the purpose of insuring equitable results, is lodged with the trial judge in the selection of jurors,--a discretion that must be governed largely by the characteristics of the juror and the special circumstances connected with each particular challenge; and where no positive provision of the statute is disregarded, unless there appears to have been a gross abuse of discretion in determining the question of enmity or bias, courts of review will not interfere. Railroad Co. v. Moynahan, 8 Colo. 56, 5 P. 811.

A writ of attachment was duly issued at the commencement of the action, and levied upon certain property of defendant. Plaintiff's affidavit in attachment was traversed by defendant, and an issue thus made, as permitted by law. This issue was tried by the county court, and judgment was rendered...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Rio Grande Southern R. Co. v. Nichols
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • February 5, 1912
    ... ... It is sufficient to say that it ... does not disclose that any statute was violated, or that the ... court abused its discretion. Collins v. Burns, 16 Colo. 7, 26 ... P. 145; Denver Co. v. Driscoll, 12 Colo. 520, 21 P. 708, 13 ... Am.St.Rep. 243; Denver Co. v. Moynahan, 8 Colo. 56, 5 ... ...
  • People v. Beeman
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 1976
    ...discretionary rulings of the trial court will not be overturned on review in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. See Collins v. Burns, 16 Colo. 7, 26 P. 145; Kelly v. People, 121 Colo. 243, 215 P.2d 336. In Colorado, a prospective juror is not disqualified to serve because of a previou......
  • Independence Coffee & Spice Co. v. Kalkman
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • March 6, 1916
    ...in this regard. Mooney v. People, 7 Colo. 218, 3 P. 235; Denver, S. P. & P. R. Co. v. Moynahan, 8 Colo. 56, 5 P. 811; Collins v. Burns, 16 Colo. 7, 26 P. 145; v. People, 26 Colo. 496, 59 P. 51; Babcock v. People, 13 Colo. 515, 22 P. 817. We find no prejudicial error in the admission or reje......
  • Wheeler v. People
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1917
    ...disturbed, except upon abuse of a discretion thus exercised. Union Gold Mining Company v. Rocky Mt. Nat. Bank, 2 Colo. 566; Collins v. Burns, 16 Colo. 7, 26 P. 145; v. People, 13 Colo. 515, 22 P. 817. The case in which the alleged perjured testimony was given was one for assault with intent......
  • 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