King v. State

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: M'GIRK
• Citation: King v. State, 1 Mo. 717 (Mo. 1827)
• Decision Date: 31 May 1827
• Parties: KING v. THE STATE.

1 Mo. 717

KING

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

May Term, 1827.

ERROR FROM ST LOUIS CIRCUIT COURT.

M'GIRK, C. J.

The State indicted King for murder. He was arraigned, tried, and convicted. It appears, by a bill of exceptions, that a list of jurors had been furnished to the prisoner, two days before the trial, and that, as the cause progressed, in making up the traverse jury, one of the venire returned, asked the court to be discharged from attendance on the court, on account of the sickness of his wife, and the court did discharge him; that immediately after his discharge, the prisoner's counsel objected to the discharge, and took his exception thereto. The court then proceeded with the trial, and the traverse jury was completed, withont exhausting the original panel, and without summoning another juror in the place of the one discharged. In the progress of the trial, the senior counsel for the prisoner moved the court to put the witnesses for the State under a rule, that they should be separated so as not to hear each other's examination; at the same time stating, that he had no reason to apprehend any evil consequences, if the witnesses were not put under the rule. The junior counsel, also, at the time, declared he had good reason to apprehend the contrary; but nothing more was shown to the court on the subject.

The court refused the motion. These things are complained of as error. As to the first point we cannot discover any error; no evil seems to have resulted to the prisoner in consequence of the discharge of the juror. The objection came somewhat late, but if it had been made in time, yet the court must have power to discharge jurors before they are sworn. The utmost consequence the prisoner could claim, from the...