Lamar v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1887 |
| Citation | 2 So. 12,64 Miss. 687 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WALTER F. LAMAR v. THE STATE |
April 1887
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Yazoo County HON. T. J. WHARTON Judge.
Walter F. Lamar was indicted upon a charge of assault with intent to kill and murder Arthur C. Crane. He was convicted, and appealed to this court. The question presented for adjudication here will be found stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed.
W. H Luse, for the appellant.
The natural result of the proceedings in reference to Adams was to make the balance of the jury suspicious of him and destroy his influence. The more scrupulous and honorable he might be the more he would be hampered and deterred in their deliberations on the verdict with the impression that he was suspected by the balance of the jury and by the court. The defense could not know what the court was going to decide as to motion to discharge Adams from the jury, and could not respond to the charge against the juror without exhibiting an anxiety for him that might prejudice their client. The court might have directed precautions suo sponte, or the State's attorney could have suggested same to avoid irregularities, or, when State's attorney withdrew his motion to discharge Adams, the case could have commenced de novo. We would here call the court's attention to the fact that the record shows that Adams was charged with having declared his purpose, if taken on the jury, to clear the prisoner, so there was implied in all the proceedings a distinct charge of perjury--a position, we claim, not calculated to make a man of honor and sensibility feel "fair and impartial." The action of the court left the appellant without a fair and impartial jury. See Martin v. State, 63 Miss. 507, and authorities there cited.
J. E. Everett, on the same side.
The examination of the juror Adams and witnesses as to his qualifications after the jury had been impaneled and witnesses had been examined before the jury was a fatal error in the court. Jurors must be left free to act in accordance with the dictates of their judgments. The final decision rests with them, and interference such as the record in this case shows had the effect to trammel their minds and force them into a verdict against their honest convictions. If the proceedings by the court were in the least tainted with the odor of being inquisitorial, then they are violative of the constitutional protection guaranteed to every citizen charged with crime to a fair and impartial trial. The juror Adams must have felt very keenly the challenge made upon his integrity by the court. It certainly did not leave his mind as free to act as it was before the examination.
T. M. Miller, Attorney General, for the State.
It was objected that the juror Adams was allowed to be examined by the district attorney, in the absence of the rest of the jury, upon the question whether Lamar had endeavored to get him to be on the jury, etc. There is nothing in the objection, however, because the answers of the juror showed that he only visited Lamar in jail to inform him that he knew nothing about the case, so that he would not compel him to remain away from his business.
If the answers were true, it cannot be said that the juror was intimidated to the prejudice of the defendant. If false, it cannot be objected that he was thus given to understand that he was under suspicion. If he was thereby recalled to a sense of duty and the obligations of his oath, which in the end he acted under, the proceeding was altogether right and proper. But it will not do to assume that the reason and the conscience of a man selected to be a juror could be turned aside because of such a proceeding as this. He was given the opportunity to clear away a suspicion concerning himself only, and did so to the satisfaction of the court and district attorney.
Shall it be said a new trial ought to be granted because, under fear of discovery, a juror had abandoned a corrupt design and decided a case according to law and the evidence? The law would be in contempt to hold such a doctrine.
The verdict rendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Owen v. State
... ... in their verdict, and resulted in their being denied their ... constitutional right of a trial by an impartial jury ... guaranteed to them by the twenty-sixth section of the ... Constitution ... Green ... v. State, 97 Miss. 834, 53 So. 415; Lamar v. State, ... 64 Miss. 687, 2. So. 12 ... The ... court erred in permitting the confessions offered by the ... state to be used against the defendants and each of them, ... before the jury over the objection of the defendants, and in ... overruling the defendants' motions to ... ...
-
Sharkey v. State
...that his guilt has not been ascertained in the manner prescribed by law, and every one is to be judged by the law. Lamar v. State , 64 Miss. 687, 692, 2 So. 12, 14 (1887) (emphasis added).¶71. Our precedent, and the principles of a fair and impartial trial espoused by the Constitutions of t......
-
Warren v. State
... ... that we cannot safely say the jury has not been materially ... influenced thereby, we must reverse, even though the court at ... some later stage of the trial may have instructed the jury to ... disregard the illegal evidence. Compare Lamar v ... State, 64 Miss. 687, 2 So. 12; Green v. State, ... 97 Miss. 834, 53 So. 415 ... The ... attorney-general has confessed error in two of the ... particulars above mentioned, but has submitted that the legal ... evidence, and that part of the record free of error, is amply ... ...
-
Williams v. State
...C. L. 670; 4 Ky. L. Rep. 3; 11 Ann. Cas., page 1181, and note. In conclusion we desire to quote from the late J. A. P. CAMPBELL in Lamar v. State, 2 So. 12, where he "The suggestion is made that the effect of the proceeding was merely to impress on the jury a sense of duty; and as it lead t......