McFarland v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 1916 |
| Citation | 70 So. 563,110 Miss. 482 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCFARLAND v. STATE |
October 1915
APPEAL from the circuit court of Carroll county. HON. H. H. RODGERS Judge.
Nathan McFarland was convicted of murder and appeals.
The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.
Affirmed.
F. M Glass and R. F. Kimmons, for appellant.
Ross A. Collins, attorney-general, for the state.
Appellant was indicted for murder, convicted by the jury, and sentenced to be hanged by the circuit court of the second district of Carroll county. In accordance with the practice of this court in cases wherein the death penalty is imposed, each member of the court has read the entire record of the evidence taken in the trial court and the brief of counsel for appellant.
We have reached the conclusion that no error of law was committed by the trial court, but, inasmuch as it is so earnestly insisted that the record discloses appellant was tried by an unsworn jury, we have decided to discuss this assignment of error.
The argument is based on the recital of facts contained in two orders entered upon the minutes of the trial court. Omitting that part of the court's orders not pertinent to the points made in this court, we quote as follows from the order entered May 19th, viz.:
"This day this cause came on for hearing, and the district attorney, who prosecutes for the state in this behalf, being in open court, and the defendant, Nathan McFarland, being in open court in his own proper person and represented by counsel, and being rearraigned, and having had road to him the bill of indictment filed herein against him for the murder, enters his plea of not guilty thereto, and for his trial puts himself upon the country, and the district attorney doth alike, for the issue joined, whereupon the state was called upon as to being ready for trial, announced ready for trial, whereupon the defendant was called upon as to being ready for trial, whereupon, the defendant having his witnesses called, all answered present, including the witnesses Neely Greer and Lenius Biles, who were mentioned in the defendant's written motion filed for a continuance at a former day of this term of court, whereupon the defendant announced ready for trial, whereupon the court proceeded to impanel the jury from the persons summoned by the special venire facias aforesaid, whereupon the following named twelve good and lawful men of said county, to wit: E. M. Hovis, J. O. Adams, T. N. Merriweather, Jr., T. E. Bell, J. T. Buchanan, J. F. Bole, S. T. Carpenter, J. M. Grant, J. C. Day, N. A. Delap, W. W. Wilson. . . ."
Again, we quote from the order entered May 20th, as follows:
"This day this cause came on to be heard, thereupon came the district attorney, who prosecutes for the state in this behalf, and the defendant, in his own proper person and represented by counsel, and both announcing ready for trial and the defendant being arraigned according to law and entering a plea of not guilty as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...sworn, and a trial by an unsworn jury is a trial without a jury. Secs. 1264 and 2064, Code of 1930; Miller v. State, 84 So. 161; McFarland v. State, 70 So. 563; Hill State, 73 So. 66; Boroum v. State, 63 So. 297; Stark v. State, 97 So. 577; Cummings v. State, 155 So. 179. Under the Constitu......
-
Brown v. State
...sworn, and a trial by an unsworn jury is a trial without a jury. Secs. 1264 and 2064, Code of 1930; Miller v. State, 84 So. 161; McFarland v. State, 70 So. 563; Hill v. State, 73 So. Boroum v. State, 63 So. 297; Stark v. State, 97 So. 577; Cummings v. State, 155 So. 179. Under the Constitut......
-
Atkinson v. State
...matter complained of is jurisdictional in its nature. The Hays case was followed and approved by this court in the case of McFarland v. The State, 110 Miss. 482. orally by Marion W. Reily and H. H. Parker, for appellant, and E. C. Sharp, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state. OPINION SY......
-
Hill v. State
...So. 871. It will be presumed that the jury in a criminal case was sworn in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary. McFarlan v. State, 70 So. 563. The testimony in circuit court shows in this case that the jurors were sworn when the juries were drawn at the beginning of court,......