Langford v. State
| Decision Date | 20 March 1911 |
| Citation | 135 S.W. 895,98 Ark. 327 |
| Parties | LANGFORD v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pope Circuit Court; J. H. Basham, Judge; reversed.
Reversed and remanded.
J. T. Bullock, Brooks, Hays & Martin and Bullock & Davis, for appellant.
The juror Hanks, being a justice of the peace, was not subject to jury duty; the court therefore erred in overruling appellant's challenge of him for cause, and in requiring appellant to exhaust one of his peremptory challenges on him. Kirby's Dig. § 4537; 69 Ark. 449; Id. 323.
Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, assistant, for appellee.
Appellee confesses error as to retention of the juror Hanks and requiring appellant to exhaust a peremptory challenge upon him.
Ed Langford was convicted of the crime of manslaughter, and appeals to this court.
One of the assignments of error relates to the ruling of the court in overruling appellant's challenge of juror Hanks who was a justice of the peace at the time he was impaneled. The Attorney General confesses error on this assignment.
When the fact was disclosed, on the examination of this juror, that he was a justice of the peace, appellant challenged him for cause, and the court overruled the challenge. Appellant then peremptorily challenged the juror, and thereafter, in impaneling the jury, exhausted all of his peremptory challenges.
The statute provides that "whenever any juryman shall be presented for examination in impaneling any jury, it shall be a ground of peremptory challenge that said juryman is a postmaster, justice of the peace or county officer." Kirby's Dig. § 4537.
This court, in construing the statute, said: Terrell v. State, 69 Ark. 449, 64 S.W. 223.
There are other assignments of error relating to alleged disqualification of other jurors and to improper argument of counsel for the State; but as the error indicated above calls for a reversal, and the other matter may not occur at another trial, it is unnecessary to pass on them.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State
... ... peremptory challenges," thereby holding that he could ... protect himself against such error, and would not be allowed ... to suffer by so doing if he exhausted his peremptory ... challenges before the completion of the jury ... Langford v. State, 98 Ark. 327, 135 S.W ... 895. It follows that, if the court erred in ruling that Ewing ... was a competent juror, the defendant was deprived of the ... right given to him by the law to obtain a fair and impartial ... trial, and he was therefore necessarily prejudiced by this ... ...
-
Wolf & Bailey v. Phillips
...not a compliance with the statute, notwithstanding such paper may have a bona fide circulation in the Western District. Acts 1905, p. 755; 98 Ark. 327. publication, to be legal, must be in conformity with section 7085 of Kirby's Digest with the exception that as to the newspaper it must be ......
-
Holman v. State
...Kirby's Dig., § 2363; 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. (1 ed.), 352; 31 Am. Digest, col. 603; 24 Cyc. 278; 102 Ark. 180; 69 Ark. 322; 91 Ark. 582; 98 Ark. 327. Wm. Moose, Attorney General, and Jno. P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee. It was not error to hold Cravens to be competent. 43 Ark. 271-2......
- McGough v. State