People v. Armstrong

• Citation: 2 Idaho 298,13 P. 342
• Parties: PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG
• Decision Date: 21 February 1887
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

13 P. 342

2 Idaho 298

PEOPLE v. ARMSTRONG

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 21, 1887

CRIMINAL PRACTICE-CHALLENGE TO PANEL.-The intentional omission of the sheriff to summon a juror duly drawn is a good cause of challenge to the panel of the trial jury. (Criminal Practice Act, sec. 322.)

EXCEPTION TO CHALLENGE-EFFECT.-An exception to the challenge to the panel admits the facts stated therein. Such exception in our criminal practice has the same relation to the denial of the challenge as a demurrer to a complaint has to the denials in the answer in our civil practice.

(Syllabus by the court.)

Motion granted, judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

No briefs filed in this case.

BUCK J. Hays, C. J., and Broderick, J., concur.

OPINION

BUCK J.

The defendant was indicted at the October term, 1886, for the crime of murder in the first degree, and charged therein with the killing of one Paul Klubert on the twenty-second day of August, 1886. When the cause was called for trial, the defendant, by his attorneys, Kingsbury & McGowan, interposed a challenge to the panel of the trial jury, and specified, as the facts constituting the grounds of said challenge "that the sheriff had purposely omitted to summon one L H. McIrving, a trial juror drawn to serve at said term of court, and whose name was on the list of jurors given to the sheriff to be summoned as said juror." To such challenge, N. M. Ruick, the district attorney for Alturas county, excepted, and the same having been submitted to the court was overruled, to which ruling the attorneys for the defendant excepted, and the cause is brought into this court on a bill of exceptions. The record contains much other matter; but, as the conclusion of the court upon said assignment of error is decisive of the case, it will not be necessary to consider the other specifications of error.

The appeal having come into this court, the attorney general stated that, upon examination of the record, he was of the opinion that the said assignment of error was well taken, and moved that the cause be placed upon the calendar, the judgment be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. By consent of the attorneys for the defendant the said motion was submitted without argument.

Our Criminal Practice Act (Rev. Laws 1874-75, p. 409), provides as follows: "Sec. 324. If the sufficiency of the facts alleged as a ground of challenge be denied, the adverse party...