Commonwealth v. Eagan

• Decision Date: 13 February 1899
• Docket Number: 398
• Citation: 42 A. 374,190 Pa. 10
• Parties: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. J. James Eagan, alias J. James Smith, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

42 A. 374

190 Pa. 10

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. J. James Eagan, alias J. James Smith, Appellant

No. 398

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

February 13, 1899

Argued January 16, 1899

Appeal, No. 398, Jan. T., 1898, by defendant, from judgment 08 O. & T. Susquehanna Co., April T., 1898, No. 1, on verdict of guilty of murder of the first degree. Affirmed.

Indictment for murder.

At the trial before SEARLE, P.J., a motion to quash the array of grand jurors was made for the following reasons:

1. The grand jurors that found the indictment were not a lawful body, nor were they selected and drawn from the jury wheel according to law.

2. The jury wheel was not kept in the custody of the jury commissioners.

3. The jury wheel was not locked and sealed after it was filled, as provided by law.

4. The list of names alleged to have been selected and placed in the jury wheel on December 1, 1897, for the ensuing year, is not properly sworn to by the jury commissioners and president judge, nor is it properly certified to by the said jury commissioners and president judge, as provided by law.

5. The sheriff and the jury commissioners were not properly and lawfully sworn before or at the time of drawing the grand jury.

6. No book was or is kept containing the Christian and surnames of all persons summoned by the sheriff to serve upon said grand jury, and the time of service, as required by law.

7. The jury commissioners failed to furnish a list of said grand jury to the sheriff and to the clerk of court, to be set up in their respective offices, nor has there such lists been set up in either of said offices for inspection, as provided by law.

The reasons were supported by the following affidavit:

Susquehanna county, ss.: J. James Eagan, alias Smith, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he has just acquired information to found the above exceptions upon, but had no knowledge or information of the same until after April 15 1898, and the adjournment of all the courts of that term. He expects and is able to prove sufficient facts to sustain each of the above exceptions, and prays the court for an opportunity to do so.

The court overruled the motion in an opinion as follows:

The defendants, or one of them, James Eagan, asks leave to withdraw his plea of not guilty entered by him on April 15 1898, for the purpose of making a motion relative to quashing the array of grand jurors which found the indictment against him and also the array of petit jurors drawn to try the case at present term of court. The indictment in this case was found at the sitting of the grand jury two weeks preceding the first day of April term of court. At that time the defendants were brought into court and requested to plead to the indictment. The counsel representing both of the defendants asked to be excused from pleading at that time for the reason that he wished an opportunity to examine the records in the case in relation to the impaneling of the jury and the regularity of the proceeding in order to make such motions in relation to the same as he thought proper before entering the plea. At his request the defendants were excused from pleading at that time, for the express purpose of giving opportunity for the defendants and their counsel to make such investigations in relation to the formation of the jury as desired. At the regular term of court, the case was called for trial, when upon the motion of both of the defendants it was continued to the present term for the reason of the absence of witnesses who, the defendants alleged, were material on their behalf, and that they had had no opportunity to obtain them. The defendants were then arraigned and entered a plea of "not guilty." We think that they had ample time and opportunity between the date of the finding of the bill of indictment and the time they were arraigned to ascertain whether there had been any irregularities which they desired to take advantage of, especially as the time of the arraignment and plea were extended for the express purpose of giving that opportunity. All the irregularities claimed in this case are technical in their nature. There is neither any proof nor allegation that the jury wheel was tampered with by any one or that it was opened by any one from the time the names were selected and placed in the wheel until they were drawn therefrom by the proper officers. There is no proof nor allegation that there was any irregularity sufficient to set aside the panel so far as relates to the filling of the jury wheel. We are therefore of the opinion that this motion for the withdrawal of the plea for the purpose indicated in the motion comes too late, for the reason that the defendants had ample opportunity to make any motions, dilatory or otherwise, which they wished, prior to entering the plea, and the motion to withdraw the plea is therefore refused. The challenge made to the array of grand jurors that were summoned and returned the indictment on March 29, is overruled, it appearing that the challenge to the array of grand jurors was made subsequent to the plea entered in the case and subsequent to the opportunity to make the challenge, time having been given for that purpose if desired. [1]

Defendant made a motion to quash the indictment, as follows:

"The grand jury which found the indictment were drawn from a jury wheel which on August 9, 1898, was held by the court to have been improperly sealed, as the order of that date in this case will show, and subsequent to that date the entire panel from said wheel was taken out and emptied by order of the court of August 10, 1898, as will show in this case; therefore, from the evidence which was taken as part of the record in this case, it was shown that the jury wheel had never been properly sealed during any of the time while the names of the grand jurors were contained therein. There was no power in the defendants by a plea to waive the defect of improper care and custody of the jury wheel, and the evidence taken at the former hearing in this case connected with quashing the array of grand and petit jurors is offered in evidence in connection with this motion, as part of the same."

By the Court: Motion overruled. [2]

Defendant presented a petition to the court, alleging that the indictment did not set forth specifically the charge or crime that deponent committed, whether as principal, aider, abettor or counselor, or whether the crime was committed in perpetration or in the attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery or burglary, with the said Cornelius Shew, the other person named in said indictment, or individually; and did not set forth in what manner the assault was made upon the said Jackson Pepper, or whether said deponent or said Shew severally or jointly assaulted the said Andrew Jackson Pepper, or what instrument was used (if any) in committing the assault and whom by, or whether the instrument was a deadly weapon or not; and did not set forth whether deponent was accessory to the crime or not. It requested that the district attorney file a bill of particulars setting forth fully and at large the particulars pertaining to the foregoing matters, so the deponent might be able to prepare his defense to said indictment; as he had not sufficient knowledge at that time to prepare his defense to the crime charged.

By the Court: In this case the defendants were present with their counsel at the hearing before the justice of the peace and heard all the testimony deemed necessary to procure this commitment for the crime charged in the indictment. They entered a plea at April term. Motion refused. [3]

Erastus Ives, a juror, on his voir dire made answers to questions as follows:

By the commonwealth:

"Q. Where do you reside? A. Liberty township. Q. How long have you lived there? A. About forty years. Q. Are you acquainted with James Eagan, the defendant here? A. No, sir. Q. Are you acquainted with Cornelius Shew? A. No, sir. Q. Did you read the account of the Pepper murder and the arrest of these parties? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you hear the subject talked over? A. Yes, sir. Q. From all that you heard talked and read, did you form any fixed opinion as to the guilt or innocence of James Eagan? A. Yes, sir. Q. You did form an opinion? A. Yes, sir. Q. Notwithstanding all that you have heard and read, can you go into the jury box as a juror and render a verdict impartially upon the evidence and upon that alone, as you shall hear it in this court room, uninfluenced by any opinion or impression that you have formed? A. I think I could. Q. Have you any scruples of any kind regarding capital punishment? A. No, sir."

The commonwealth passed the juror.

By defendant: "Q. That opinion which you formed was somewhat of a fixed opinion, was it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. You still have that same opinion which you formed at the time of reading the accounts? A. Yes, sir, I think I do."

The court overruled the prisoner's challenge for cause. [4]

Selden Munger presented a paper purporting to be a confession made by the prisoner, which is as follows: "My name is J James Eagan. I have lived with a family named Smith, and was called Smith from a child. On Monday, October 18, Shew and I left Susquehanna, arrived at Rush Tuesday afternoon. We went to the barn and looked around, we intended waiting until they went to bed and then get the money, and then when the old gentleman went to the barn to husk corn we saw him there. Shew suggested that it would be better to overcome him there. He had a club but threw it away near the barn. He found a whiffletree near the barn and took it inside the barn with him. Shew hit Pepper with the club. I heard him hit Pepper. Then they had a struggle and he hit him two or three times. I was...