James v. State

• Decision Date: 08 December 1900
• Citation: 60 S.W. 29
• Parties: JAMES v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

60 S.W. 29

JAMES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 8, 1900.

Appeal from circuit court, Chicot county; Zacharia T. Wood, Judge.

Joshua James was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robinson & Merritt and W. G. Street, for appellant. Jeff Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. Jacobson, for the State.

HUGHES, J.

Appellant, Joshua James, was indicted by the grand jury of Chicot county for the crime of murder in the first degree. He was duly served with a copy of the indictment, waived arraignment and the drawing of the jury, entered his plea of not guilty, was tried, convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hanged, and filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and appealed to this court.

There are only two questions presented by counsel in their brief for a reversal of this cause. The first is that there was no proof of venue in the original record filed in this court. The venue was inadvertently omitted, but this was supplied by certiorari, which leaves only one other question in the case.

Felix Lawson was summoned as a juror in the case, and, upon being asked whether he was a qualified elector, answered that he was. He was duly accepted as a juror, and served on the case. After the verdict was returned, it was found that said Felix Lawson had not paid his poll tax. This was shown by the list of paid-up poll taxes as certified to by the collector of Chicot county. This is an attempt to raise the question in the case whether one who has not paid his poll tax, although otherwise qualified, could legally serve on a petit jury. This objection comes too late after verdict. It was not shown nor contended that the juror was prejudiced, that he was corrupt, or had been bribed, or anything of that kind, and only the technical objection is made that he had not paid his poll tax. Even if the failure to pay his poll tax had been a disqualification as a juror, — which we do decide, — still the objection should have been made to the juror before he was accepted as such. It is not shown that appellant cross-examined the juror Lawson on his voir dire, or that he was challenged for cause or peremptorily. It was not attempted to be shown that the appellant was prejudiced in any manner by the presence of the juror Lawson upon the jury. Section 4255 of Sandels & Hill's Digest provides that "no person shall be qualified to serve as a grand jury man unless he is an elector and citizen of the county in...