Johnson v. State

• Decision Date: 15 December 1894
• Citation: 28 S.W. 792,60 Ark. 45
• Parties: JOHNSON v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

28 S.W. 792

60 Ark. 45

JOHNSON v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

December 15, 1894

Appeal from Faulkner Circuit Court, JAMES S. THOMAS, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

J. H Harrod, for appellant.

1. The court erred in asking the defendant, on cross-examination, if he did not forfeit his bail on a charge of felony when he left Texas. Mansf. Dig., sec. 2902; 34 Ark. 257; 51 id. 140. This error was not cured. The incompetent evidence should have been expressly withdrawn from the jury. 102 U.S. 457; 43 Ark. 99.

2. The remarks of the judge were prejudicial error. 17 Kas. 462; 38 Mich. 416; 46 Mich. 623; 29 N.E. 909; 42 Ind. 420; 14 S.W 538.

3. It was reversible error to keep the jury together for ninety-four hours while some of them were sick, and under the influence of narcotics.

James P. Clarke, Attorney General, and Chas. T. Coleman for appellee.

1. If the question asked defendant was error (46 Ark. 141; 56 id 7; 58 id. 480), it was cured by the court's withdrawing it and the answer from the jury.

2. The remarks of the judge to the jury were not prejudicial. No valid objection can be made to them. Thompson, Charging the Jury, sec. 58; 35 Mich. 56; 8 Cush. 1; 50 Ga. 53; 60 N.H. 472.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

J. S. Johnson was indicted for murder in the first degree; was convicted of murder in the second degree; his conviction was set aside; he was tried the second time, and convicted of manslaughter.

He complains of three alleged error in the second trial. First. While he was testifying in his own behalf, the prosecuting attorney asked him, on cross-examination, if he did not forfeit a bail bond which he had given to answer a charge of felony when he left Texas "a year or so" before the killing of the deceased. He objected to the question, but the court overruled his objection, and, saving exception, he answered that he had. After the prosecuting attorney had spoken about ten minutes in his first speech to the jury, the judge interrupted him, and said that the court would sustain the objection to the question as to his leaving Texas, and hold the answer thereto improper evidence to be introduced.

Second. On the 6th of July, 1894, the cause was submitted to the jury. At 5 o'clock in the evening of the next day the court sent for the jury, and inquired if they had agreed, and they answered they had not. On the 10th of July, 1894, about 8:30 in the morning, the court again sent for them, and asked if they had agreed, and they replied that they had not, and the court said: "This case has been a great expense to the county from which it came, and it ought to be decided; and while I do not ask you to yield any question of conscience, you must not be obstinate or too tenacious of your views"--to which statement the defendant at the time excepted. At 4 o'clock in the evening of the same day they returned a verdict in words as follows: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and leave the assessing of the punishment to the court, and recommend the defendant to the mercy of the court."

Third. One of the grounds of the defendant's motion for a new trial was: "The court erred in keeping the jury together in said cause ninety-four hours while some of them were ill, and wholly incapacitated by reason of sickness from considering said cause"--to support which he filed the affidavit of D. J. Cox, in which the affiant stated, substantially, as follows: McPherson, a member of the jury, became sick during the night of the 8th of July, 1894, and appeared to suffer considerably. On the day following he took medicine and was drowsy, and after this, on the same day, sent for a physician, who came at once, and administered to him a hypodermic injection of one-eighth of a grain of morphine, and left two more doses of one-eighth of a grain each which the patient took. He complained of being sick till the jury was discharged. Taylor, Jolly and Blackburn, three other members, complained of being sick on Monday.

1. The question propounded to the defendant while testifying was an improper one (Anderson v. State, 34 Ark. 257); but the error in admitting the answer to it as evidence could have been cured by the court withdrawing the same from the consideration of the jury ( Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U.S. 451, 26 L.Ed. 141; 458; Carr v. State, 43 Ark. 99). The defendant insists that this should have been done by telling the jury in direct terms not to consider it in arriving at their conclusion. This, it seems to us, is unnecessary. It is properly withdrawn if it is done in a manner sufficient to indicate clearly and give the jury to understand that the evidence is excluded, and they should not consider it. What more can be accomplished by telling them in clear and explicit language not to consider it?

In this case the defendant objected to the question. Why? Because it was not proper, and the witness should not be required to answer it. After overruling the objection, and when the prosecuting attorney was in the midst of his speech, the court stopped him to say that the defendant's objection was sustained, and that the answer to the question was not admissible as evidence. What was intended by this remark, and how did the jury understand it? What the court meant is obvious. It...