McGoldrick v. State

• Decision Date: 16 November 1929
• Citation: 21 S.W.2d 390,159 Tenn. 667
• Parties: McGOLDRICK v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

21 S.W.2d 390

159 Tenn. 667

McGOLDRICK v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

November 16, 1929

Error to Circuit Court, Claiborne County; W. H. Buttram, Judge.

P McGoldrick was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and he brings error. Affirmed.

G. W Montgomery and Wm. I. Davis, both of Tazewell, for plaintiff in error.

W. F Barry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

COOK J.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for causing the death of Hattie Atkinson Potter by striking her with an automobile on the highway near the entrance of the Lincoln Memorial University campus. He appealed and insists that the conviction should be reversed (1) because the evidence preponderates against the verdict and in favor of his innocence; (2) for prejudicial error in the court's charge; and (3) because of the disqualification propter affectum of Arch Bartlett, a juror whose bias in favor of the prosecution was unknown to defendant until after the verdict.

The attack upon the qualification of the juror is made through the testimony of witnesses McNeely and Venable. These witnesses in substance say that they talked with Bartlett before the trial, and he told them that his daughter was very friendly with Miss Atkinson, who afterwards married Potter, that she spent week ends at his home, and his daughter thought a lot of her. McNeely could not remember what Bartlett said about the accident except that he spoke of the distance the car skidded, and that he judges from the conversation that Bartlett had some feeling against McGoldrick, and that, in response to McNeely's remark that McGoldrick was a good boy and it was hoped he was not boozing, Bartlett replied he probably was boozing. McNeely says Bartlett did not state what the proof was and expressed no opinion as to who was at fault. Venable said Bartlett referred to McGoldrick's case as a bad case, and to Venable's remark that it was an accident replied that the proof would show it to be a bad case.

Bartlett admits acquaintance with the young woman who was killed and her visits to his home while his daughter was at Lincoln Memorial University, but says he knew nothing of the facts except from rumor and what his daughter told him, and that she was not a witness to any of the facts.

The defendant was entitled to a fair and impartial trial, which of course includes the selection of a fair and impartial jury to pass upon the facts. Where the jury or a juror has prejudged the case, and the knowledge of his bias or prejudice is unknown until after the verdict, the courts say it must be presumed that his prejudices enter into and become a part of the result, and for that reason the verdict should be set aside. Brakefield v. State, 1 Sneed, 219.

Conversations and statements of jurors and opinions of guilt founded upon rumor or upon newspaper reports do not render such jurors incompetent, and their participation in a verdict will not vitiate it. Troxdale v. State, 9 Humph. 422; Palmer v. State, 121 Tenn. 465, 118 S.W. 1022.

Mere loose impressions and conversations of a juror founded upon rumor cannot be regarded as the formation or expression of an opinion or a conviction. There must be something to justify a conclusion that the juror is hostile to the accused and maliciously finds a place on the jury with a view to injure him.

It is not shown that Bartlett expressed an opinion. While it may be inferred from the statements of Venable and McNeely that he had an opinion, their testimony does not disclose that he was in possession of the facts other than through rumor. It may also be inferred that as a result of what he had heard, and because of his acquaintance with the young woman, he...