Griffith v. State
| Decision Date | 16 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 719. |
| Parties | GRIFFITH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wilcox County; L. S. Moore, Judge.
Appellant was indicted for the theft of two cows and a heifer, the property of one Dailey. Evidence for defendant tended to show that he purchased the cattle and owned them for some time before selling them in Selma, and that the location of the cattle before their sale by him had been in Monroe County. The State's evidence tended to show ownership of the cattle by Dailey, that they were stolen in Monroe County, and further that the allegedly stolen cattle were transported to Selma through Wilcox County, wherein the indictment was found.
Edmund W. Pettus, of Selma, and C. L. Hybart, of Monroeville, for appellant.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Frank N. Savage, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
By statutory prescription, it is ground for challenge for cause by the defendant that a juror is connected by affinity within the fifth degree (computing according to the rules of the civil law), with the prosecutor or alleged injured party. Code 1940, Title 30, Section 55(4).
Pursuant to this section of our statute, the prospective jurors were qualified in this regard, for the purpose of ascertaining their relationship with the respective parties. It appears without dispute that one of the jurors, who was accepted on the jury which tried the case, was related by affinity to the alleged injured party within the fifth degree and upon his voir dire examination failed to respond to the inquiry propounded to him as to this relationship and did not make known the same to the court or to the defendant. It is further uncontroverted that this relationship of said juror was unknown to the defendant and his counsel.
This conduct of the juror necessarily resulted in depriving the defendant of a substantial statutory right and, in our view, demands a reversal of the judgment of conviction.
The State, on the hearing of the motion for new trial, sought to save the error by the testimony of the juror that he was ignorant of this relationship, but we are clear to the conclusion that this important statutory right should not be abrogated in any such fashion. To so rule would subject this legal safeguard-of good ground of challenge for cause-to countless post trial manipulations and open the jury panels to the unscrupulous who might as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North v. State
...Tenn. 200, 31 S.W. 999; Tegarden v. Phillips, Ind.App., 39 N.E. 212; City of Dayton v. Perry, Ohio App., 44 N.E.2d 381; Griffith v. State, 31 Ala.App. 432, 18 So.2d 284; Jones v. Imperial Garages, Or., 145 P.2d For the reasons stated herein I vote to grant the petition for rehearing and wou......
-
Beasley v. State
...irrespective of whether the concealment was deliberate or unintentional. Leach v. State, 31 Ala.App. 390, 18 So.2d 285; Griffith v. State, 31 Ala.App. 432, 18 So.2d 284. * * We find further dictum in the same vein in Parkinson v. Hudson, 265 Ala. 4, 88 So.2d 793. In view of these recent exp......
-
Vaughn v. State
...for rehearing are Leach v. State, 31 Ala.App. 390, 18 So.2d 285, cert. denied, 245 Ala. 539, 18 So.2d 289 (1944) and Griffith v. State, 31 Ala.App. 432, 18 So.2d 284. Although Leach contains some language favorable to appellant on the point under consideration, it is not authority for the p......
-
McHenry v. State
...189(9) 96 So.2d 693; Wallis v. State, 38 Ala.App. 359, 361, 362, 84 So.2d 788, cert. den. 264 Ala. 700, 84 So.2d 792; Griffith v. State, 31 Ala.App. 432, 433, 18 So.2d 284. For similar holdings in civil cases, see: McLendon v. City of Troy, 273 Ala. 63, 66, 134 So.2d 190, 89 A.L.R.2d 1238; ......