Moring v. State

• Decision Date: 07 February 1901
• Citation: 129 Ala. 66,29 So. 664
• Parties: MORING v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

29 So. 664

129 Ala. 66

MORING v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 7, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Dale county; A. A. Evans, Judge.

Russell Moring was convicted of burglary, and appeals. Reversed.

The only question presented for review on the present appeal is the ruling of the trial court in the organization of the jury. The facts in reference to such ruling are stated in the bill of exceptions as follows: "The court asked the jury if either of them were related by blood or marriage to the defendant or to W. G. Smith, the person whose property was alleged to have been stolen. The jury was then put upon the state for acceptance or rejection and the state accepted the jury. The jury was then put upon the defendant, who excused some, and the court had jurors called from the other jury to complete the jury for the trial of defendant; and a jury was finally accepted by both the state and the defendant. Upon the jury so selected was one C. A. B. Edwards, who asked that he be excused from serving on the jury for the trial of defendant because both the defendant and W. G. Smith, whose lard was alleged to have been stolen, had lived on his plantation formerly and he felt like he had partly raised them. The state announced that it was satisfied with Mr Edwards notwithstanding the facts mentioned by him, and the defendant also announced satisfied. The solicitor then read the indictment to the jury and the defendant pleaded not guilty. And the court ordered that the witnesses for the state and for the defendant come around and be sworn. Thereupon the said C. A. B. Edwards, among others, came around to be sworn as a witness for the defendant. The solicitor then stated to the court that he did not know until then that the said Edwards was a witness for defendant and asked leave of the court to withdraw the state's acceptance of the said Edwards as a juror for the trial of this cause, and that the state be allowed to challenge him for cause. The defendant thereupon duly objected to this being done. The court overruled the objection of the defendant and allowed the state to withdraw its acceptance of the said juror Edwards and to challenge him for cause. The defendant then and there duly excepted. The court then ordered the sheriff to bring around another juror from the other jury to complete the jury rendered incomplete by the challenge of said juror Edwards, which was done and the jurors were accepted by both the state and the defendant and the jury was thus completed. The solicitor again read the indictment to the jury and the trial proceeded."

...