People v. Wilmarth
| Decision Date | 04 October 1898 |
| Citation | 156 N.Y. 566,51 N.E. 277 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WILMARTH. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from supreme court, appellate division, Third department.
Frank H. Wilmarth was convicted of grand larceny in the second degree, and of forgery in the third degree. From an order and judgment of the appellate division (51 N. Y. Supp. 688) reversing the judgment of conviction, and awarding a new trial, the people appeal. Affirmed.
Henry V. Borst, for the People.
Robert P. Anibal, for respondent.
During the impaneling of the jury, one Hollenbeck was called as a juror, and examined as to his qualifications. He testified, among other things, that he had read what purported to be the testimony in regard to this matter taken before the committing magistrate; that in reading it he had formed an opinion in regard to the guilt or innocence of the defendant Wilmarth; that such opinion was decided and fixed, and evidence would be required to remove it. Further answers were made by the juror to questions put by counsel bearing upon the existence of a present opinion by him touching the guilt or innocence of the defendant, which, while tending to show that Hollenbeck was a fair-minded man, nevertheless confirmed the accuracy of the statements bearing upon his qualifications as a juror, which we have quoted.
The existence on the part of a person called as a juror of an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a person charged with a crime constitutes prima facie a disqualification. People v. McQuade, 110 N. Y. 284, 18 N. E. 156. But it does not conclusivelyestablish disqualification, for the statute steps in and provides that the existence of such an opinion or impression ‘is not a sufficient ground of challenge for actual bias, to any person otherwise legally qualified, if he declare on oath that he believes that such opinion or impression will not influence his verdict, and that he can render an impartial verdict according to the evidence, and the court is satisfied that he does not entertain such a present opinion or impression as would influence his verdict.’ Code Cr. Proc. § 376. After a juror makes the declaration provided for by the statute, then it is for the trial court to determine whether the juror does entertain such a present opinion or impression as will influence his verdict; and the decision made in such a case is necessarily one of fact, not reviewable in this court. But, if he fails to make such a declaration, then the disqualification prima facie established by his answers is not overborne, and a decision by the trial court that the juror does not entertain such a present opinion or impression as will influence his verdict is without evidence to support it.
We will now turn to the record for the purpose of ascertaining whether Hollenbeck made such a declaration as the statute calls for; for, if he did, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Culhane
...'frittered away by a recognition on the part of the courts of loose or ill-considered substitutes as equivalents' (People v. Wilmarth, 156 N.Y. 566, 569, 51 N.E. 277, 279; see also, People v. Miller, 81 App.Div. 255, 256, 80 N.Y.S. 1070, In Wilmarth we noted that the statute calls for the v......
-
State v. Werner
... ... uninfluenced by his previous opinion, he should be rejected ... 1 Thompson on Trials, section 83; People v ... Wilwarth, 156 N.Y. 566; State v. Riley, 78 P ... 1001; People v. Suesser, 64 P. 1095 ... A child ... witness with no ... ...
-
People v. Blyden
...434 U.S. 928, 98 S.Ct. 413, 54 L.Ed.2d 288; and see, People v. Culhane, 33 N.Y.2d 90, 350 N.Y.S.2d 381, 305 N.E.2d 469; People v. Wilmarth, 156 N.Y. 566, 568, 51 N.E. 277). By this oath the prospective juror is required not only to make a careful analysis of his feelings and then swear that......
-
People v. Biondo
...his verdict, and he must also state that he will render an impartial verdict based solely on the evidence (People v. Wilmarth, 156 N.Y. 566, 569, 51 N.E. 277, 278--279). Further, the juror's oath must be unequivocal (People v. McQuade, 110 N.Y. 284, 301, 18 N.E. 156, We are of the opinion t......
-
Challenges for cause in New York criminal cases.
...to influence his verdict, or that he supposes that he would have to go according to the witnesses. Id. at 125. (123) People v. Wilmarth, 51 N.E. 277, 279 (N.Y. 1898); see also People v. Flaherty, 57 N.E. 73, 75 (N.Y. 1900) (holding that a juror, who was not asked whether his opinion would i......