Martin v. State
| Citation | 256 S.W. 367,161 Ark. 423 |
| Decision Date | 17 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | 61 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Dene H. Coleman, Judge; affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Gustave Jones and Fred M. Pickens, for appellant.
J. S Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter, Assistant, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for murder in the first degree, in the circuit court of Jackson County, and, when arraigned, entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. He was convicted of murder in the second degree, and adjudged to serve a term of five years in the State Penitentiary as punishment therefor. From the judgment of conviction he has prosecuted an appeal to this court. At the conclusion of the opening statement of the prosecuting attorney as to the issues involved and what evidence the State would introduce in support of the charge, B. F. Hartwick, one of the jurors, announced that he was a member of the grand jury that returned the indictment in the case. Thereupon the court gave appellant an opportunity to challenge the juror for cause, which he declined to do. The court then discharged the jury, and appellant immediately entered a plea of former jeopardy, and moved the court for a discharge. The court overruled the motion, and impaneled another jury to try the case, over the objection and exception of appellant.
Appellant first contends for a reversal of the judgment upon the ground that the court erred in overruling the motion. Not so, for a necessity in the administration of justice had arisen demanding action on the part of the court. It became the duty of the court to safeguard the right of appellant to a trial by an impartial jury, and also to protect the right of the public to test the guilt or innocence of one charged with crime by jury trial. This court is committed to the doctrine that the discharge of a jury and impaneling of another in a situation of this kind does not constitute jeopardy. Franklin v. State, 149 Ark. 546, 233 S.W. 688, and cases cited therein in support of the rule. The rule is based upon and grows out of the necessity of the situation.
Appellant next contends for a reversal of the judgment because the court refused to give, at his request the following instruction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Franklin v. State
...of a defendant in a criminal case, even though the defendant declines to object to that which might be prejudicial to him. Martin v. State, 161 Ark. 423, 256 S.W. 367. A plea of double jeopardy would be unavailing in either event. Martin v. State, supra; Franklin v. State, supra. While we h......
-
Martin v. State
...there done, the entire jury, to secure a trial fair alike to the State and to the defendant. No other reason for so holding was given in the Martin In the Franklin case the facts were that, after the jury had been sworn, a juror announced that he had been a member of a jury which had convic......
-
Martin v. State
...and, after another juror had been qualified and sworn, the trial proceeded, and defendant was convicted as has been said. In Martin v. State (Ark.) 256 S. W. 367, the jury had been sworn and the prosecuting attorney was engaged in making his opening statement, whereupon a juror stated that ......
- Fields v. Kline