Daniels v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1890 |
| Citation | 88 Ala. 220,7 So. 337 |
| Parties | DANIELS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from county court, Hale county; JAMES M. HOBSON, Judge.
The defendant in this case was indicted for carrying a pistol concealed about his person. The indictment was found by the grand jury in the circuit court, and was removed to the county court by authority of an act conferring additional jurisdiction on the county court of Hale county. The opinion shows the first exception, and the ground thereof. After conviction the defendant moved for a new trial on the ground that W. P. Martin, one of the jurors, was a first cousin of Pink Martin, the first witness, whose name was indorsed on the indictment, and who was in charge of the place where and when the pistol was said to have been exhibited; that he did not know this fact when he accepted said Martin as juror; and that his counsel, on making inquiry before accepting the jury, was informed that there was no relationship between them. The court overruled the motion, and the defendant duly excepted.
Thos. R. Roulhac, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Martin, for the State.
An appeal lies to this court directly from the county court of Hale county under the provisions of the act approved February 12, 1879, conferring additional jurisdiction on that tribunal, and regulating the proceedings therein. Acts 1878-79, p. 291, § 14.
The first exception taken to the rulings of the court is allowing the state to challenge peremptorily the juror Mayfield. The solicitor had accepted this juror; and the court permitted him in behalf of the state, to revoke such acceptance. This was done before the defendant had expressed his satisfaction with the juror, and before the impaneling of the jury was completed, or the trial had commenced.
The rule is generally stated to be that after a juror has been accepted by both parties, and the jury has been impaneled, or the trial has been entered on, by swearing the juror or otherwise, the right to challenge is waived, unless for cause, where the disqualification was unknown at the time and could not have been discovered by the exercise of proper diligence on the part of the objector. Spigener v State, 62 Ala. 383; Smith v. State, 55 Ala. 1; Roberts v. State, 68 Ala. 515. Until the cause is opened or put to the jury, which may be considered, usually, as done when the jury is sworn, it is within the discretion of the court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Revis v. State Of Ala.
...Crim. App. 1991); Minshew v. State, 542 So. 2d 307 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988)." McGowan v. State 990 So. 2d at 951. See Daniels v. State, 88 Ala. 220, 7 So. 337 (1890) (Daniel's motion for new trial was properly denied following his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, when the motion ha......
-
Revis v. State
...22, 25 (Ala.Crim.App.1991); Minshew v. State, 542 So.2d 307 (Ala.Crim.App.1988).”McGowan v. State, 990 So.2d at 951.See Daniels v. State, 88 Ala. 220, 7 So. 337 (1890) (Daniel's motion for new trial was properly denied following his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, when the motio......
-
Beasley v. State
...important here. Our statute (§ 64, supra) affords this opportunity, except where a deception makes it nugatory. In Daniels v. State, 88 Ala. 220, 7 So. 337, 338, the court 'The rule is generally stated to be that after a juror has been accepted by both parties, and the jury has been impanel......
-
McCart v. State
...or ask the court to let him put questions touching the matter, Batson v. State, 216 Ala. 275, 113 So. 300. . . . 'In Daniels v. State, 88 Ala. 220, 7 So. 337, 338, the court 'The rule is generally stated to be that after a juror has been accepted by both parties, and the jury has been impan......