Pfeiffer v. State
Citation | 35 Ariz. 321,278 P. 63 |
Decision Date | 03 June 1929 |
Docket Number | Criminal 688 |
Parties | JOHN F. PFEIFFER, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Joseph S. Jenckes, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with directions to grant new trial.
Messrs Kingan & Darnell and Mr. John L. Van Buskirk, for Appellant.
Mr. K Berry Peterson, Attorney General, and Mr. Charles L. Strouss Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
John F. Pfeiffer was convicted of embezzling $1,213 belonging to Pima county during or while he was a deputy assessor of said county.
On this appeal he assigns errors as follows: (1) The denial of his motion to quash the indictment, the ground of said motion being that the grand jury that returned the indictment had no legal evidence before it but only incompetent testimony and hearsay. (2) A statement to the jury, under circumtances hereafter detailed, as follows: And (3) in refusing to grant a new trial upon his motion, presenting as grounds therefor the grounds of errors 1 and 2.
On the motion to quash the court heard evidence and decided against movant. If when it is charged by motion to quash that the grand jury had no evidence before it, or that all the evidence was hearsay, it is permissible procedure under our laws to take evidence thereon, we think, it appearing that some evidence was before the grand jury, the trial court's decision is conclusive. The statute, section 918 of the Penal Code of 1913, provides that a grand jury in its investigations can receive in evidence oral testimony of witnesses, legal documentary evidence, and depositions properly taken, but there is no provision as to the quantum of this evidence.
However, we do not think the question of the sufficiency or character of the evidence received by the grand jury can be raised by motion to quash. Section 971, Id., provides that the defendant upon his arraignment may move to set aside, demur or plead to the indictment or information, and section 972, Id., enumerates the grounds upon which an indictment must be set aside. None of these grounds is the insufficiency or the hearsay character of the evidence received by the grand jury in its investigation of the charge against the accused. As we understand it, the statutory grounds for vacating or setting aside an indictment or information are exclusive. In People v. Collins, 60 Cal.App. 263, 212 P. 701, it is said that, where the statute expressly sets forth the grounds upon which an indictment may be set aside it cannot be set aside for any reason other than those mentioned. In effect we think that is the holding of this court in Richardson v. State, 23 Ariz. 98, 201 P. 845; Thomas v. Territory, 11 Ariz. 184, 89 P. 591.
The courts are not in agreement on this proposition as may be seen by an examination of State v. Chance, in 31 A.L.R. 1467, and note thereto at page 1479 (29 N.M. 34, 221 P. 183).
The details leading up to the court's statement, which is assigned as error No. 2, are set out in the Attorney General's brief, and we believe correctly, and are: The jury then retired, and at 4:30 P.M. of the same day returned a verdict of guilty.
It is contended by defendant (a) that the court's statement in effect told the jury that the judge would hold them over Thursday, Friday and Saturday, unless they agreed at an earlier date, and was therefore coercive. (b) that it invaded the jury's province; and (c) that it was a comment by the judge upon the facts and the weight of the evidence. We will consider these features of the court's statement, so objectionable to defendant, in their reverse order.
The jury's province under our system of laws is to judge and determine the facts, and with the performance of this duty the judge is forbidden to interfere. When the Constitution was adopted in 1912 the supremacy and independence of the jury as the fact-finders was so jealously regarded that there was inserted in that instrument, as section 12, article 6, this language: "Judges shall not charge juries with respect to matters of facts nor comment thereon, but shall declare the law."
This provision is word for word section 16 of article 4 of the Constitution of the state of Washington, and probably was taken therefrom. The courts of the latter state have, in several cases in considering said provision, given expression to what the judge may or may not do or say in instructing a jury. The last case to speak of its meaning is State v. Roberts, 144 Wash. 381, 258 P. 32, and in it the court said: "The trial court is not forbidden to make reference to the evidence, but is only forbidden to comment thereon."
In French v. Seattle Traction Co., 26 Wash. 264, 66 P. 404, is found the best exposition of that clause of their Constitution and the one most frequently quoted in subsequent cases. It is:
(Italics ours.)
By no plausible construction can it be said the court's statement to the jury standing alone was an explanation or criticism of the evidence or an assertion or assumption of any particular fact in the case. While the judge said in effect that he thought the jury ought to be able to agree on a verdict, there was no vocal intimation as to what that verdict ought to be other than "some verdict," that is, either guilty or not guilty. It is as easy to extract from the judge's language a desire for acquittal as a wish for conviction. We think the judge by his words very carefully and successfully hid from the jury his opinion as to what the verdict should be. It is the circumstances under which the statement was made that gives it a significance not apparent from the printed word. The defendant had at the close of the case, in the presence of the jury, moved for a directed verdict, which motion was denied. Sixteen hours after the jury had been considering of their verdict they returned into court and requested that the original instructions be read to them. It was then, and preliminary to reading the instructions, that the judge made the observations which defendant contends were a comment on the evidence. It is contended that, if there was no evidence of defendant's guilt, it was the duty of the court to have directed a verdict in his favor; that refusing to do so by overruling defendant's motion the judge indicated that, so far as he was concerned, he was satisfied of defendant's guilt and that, when he said, "It is very desirable that the jury agree on some verdict . . . that you twelve men ought to be able to get together in this case and agree on some verdict," he meant, and the jury so understood, a verdict of guilty. While to the members of the bar the legal implication of an order overruling a motion for a directed verdict for defendant is not as stated, it might...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Com. v. Mascolo
...v. Strauss, 443 F.2d 986, 991 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 851, 92 S.Ct. 87, 30 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971). Contrast Pfeiffer v. State, 35 Ariz. 321, 332, 278 P. 63 (1929); Allen v. State, 172 Miss. 472, 490-491, 159 So. 533 Similarly, the judge's passing reference to the fact that it was "pas......
-
State v. Dann
...the most important involves the traditional role of the jury. Although jurors serve as the arbiter of facts, Pfeiffer v. State, 35 Ariz. 321, 325, 278 P. 63, 65 (1929), we have never required them to state their factual findings. In contrast, we have a long history of requiring in some proc......
-
State v. Jones
...may be kept for a specified period of time unless they reach a verdict may amount to coercion, tainting the verdict. Pfeiffer v. State, 35 Ariz. 321, 278 P. 63 (1929); Canterbury v. Commonwealth, 222 Ky. 510, 1 S.W.2d 976 (1928). It was said long ago in Green v. Telfair, 11 How.Pr. (N.Y.) 2......
-
Douglass v. State, Criminal 802
...in charge." It is urged that this was in effect coercion of the jury by compelling them to return a verdict. In the case of Pfeiffer v. State, 35 Ariz. 321, 278 P. 63, we held that certain remarks made by the trial judge informing the jury that he would hold them together till they reached ......