Commonwealth v. Skeggs

• Decision Date: 06 December 1867
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Skeggs, & c.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

66 Ky. 19

Commonwealth v. Skeggs, & c.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

December 6, 1867

1. The testimony of jurors is not competent to explain the grounds of their decision or to impeach the validity of their finding. (Taylor vs. Geiger, Hardin, 587; Heath vs. Conway, 1 Bibb, 398; Johnson vs Davenport, 3 J. J. Marshall, 393.)

2. An indictment returned in proper manner, by a competent grand jury, is valid, and it was error in the circuit court to permit the jurors to be examined with reference to the finding of the indictment.

3. If for any cause the indictment is defective and liable to be quashed?? that fact will not render the recognizance void.

APPEAL FROM LARUE CIRCUIT COURT.

JOHN RODMAN, Attorney General, For Appellant,

CITED--

Criminal Code, sec. 80.

OPINION

HARDIN JUDGE.

An indictment against James Skeggs and Jeremiah Skeggs for breaking into and robbing a store-house was returned in the Larue circuit court, indorsed " a true bill" by the foreman of the grand jury; and afterwards, during the same term of the court, Jeremiah Skeggs appeared and moved the court to continue the prosecution, which was done; and thereupon, said Skeggs, with Field Skeggs and Stephen Corum his sureties, entered into a recognizance in the sum of three hundred dollars for the appearance of said defendant to answer the charge at the next term of said court.

Said Jeremiah Skeggs having failed to appear in discharge of said recognizance, at the November term, 1866, a summons was awarded against said Field Skeggs and Corum to enforce their liability on said recognizance. And in May, 1867, they appeared and filed an answer, and moved the court to quash the recognizance, which motion being heard, was sustained, and a judgment was rendered quashing the recognizance and dismissing the indictment, from which judgment the Commonwealth prosecutes this appeal.

It appears from the answer and a bill of exceptions in the record that the court sustained the motion to quash the recognizance, because, in the opinion of the judge, the indictment was invalid, in consequence of the fact that, as the grand jury was at first organized, one of its members was a civil officer, notwithstanding such incompetent juror was discharged and his place supplied by another before the indictment was returned.

It is alleged in the answer that the evidence was heard by the grand jury, and their decision upon it was formed, while one...