Litford v. State

• Citation: 93 Miss. 419,46 So. 246
• Decision Date: 11 May 1908
• Docket Number: 12,796
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Parties: ALLEN LITFORD v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

46 So. 246

93 Miss. 419

ALLEN LITFORD v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

No. 12,796

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 11, 1908

FROM the circuit court of Tunica county, HON. JOHN C. BRYSON Special Judge.

Litford appellant, was indicted, tried and convicted of the murder of Charles Moody, sentenced to suffer death and appealed to the supreme court. The principle assignment of error was predicated of the action of the court below in overruling defendant's motion to quash the special venire from which the jurors who convicted him were taken. The facts of the case on this point are stated in the opinion of the court.

Judgment reversed and remanded.

Henderson & Magruder, for appellant.

Code 1906, § 2688, provides the manner of preparing jury lists, from which all juries must be taken. The board of supervisors of Tunica county in preparing the list for the year 1907, disregarded the law and evidently prepared it without reference thereto, as shown by comparison of the list as prepared by the board with the registration books.

When it is shown that the board of supervisors disregarded the requirements of Code 1906, §§ 2684, 2688, and 2689 or either of them in the preparation of a jury list, a special venire drawn therefrom should be quashed. Purvis v. State, 71 Miss. 706, 14 So. 268.

George Butler, assistant attorney general, for appellee.

When the case was called the state announced ready for trial and the defendant moved for a special venire of fifty men whereupon the court ordered the clerk to draw the same. After the execution and return of the venire facias appellant presented a motion to quash, because the number of jurors were not apportioned to the several supervisors' district according to the number of electors in each and because the failure of the board to exclude from those qualified such as had served on the regular panel within two years. This motion was overruled and this is assigned as error here. It will be noted that this venire was drawn from the jury box on the motion of appellant and that no motion had or has since been made to quash the jury box or the list of names placed therein by the board of supervisors or to have the court to declare there was no legal jury box in the county.

If appellant was not satisfied to have a venire from the regular jury box he should have presented a motion to quash the box before the drawing, execution and the return of the venire. He certainly knew before the venire was drawn if there were any...