Rice v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1861 |
| Citation | 16 Ind. 298 |
| Parties | Rice v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Warrick Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Conrad Baker and J. S. Moore, for the appellant.
James G. Jones, Attorney General, for the State.
Indictment against the appellant for assault with intent to murder. Motion to quash overruled. Trial, conviction, and judgment; a new trial being denied.
The indictment charges that the defendant, on, &c., at &c., "in and upon one William M. Spradley, then and there being, feloniously and unlawfully did make an assault, and with a certain pistol, which he, the said Commodore Rice, in his right hand then and there held, feloniously and unlawfully did aim and shoot at him the said William M. Spradley, with the intent then and there," &c.
The objection to the indictment is, that it does not allege that the pistol was so loaded or charged as to have rendered it possible for the defendant to execute his felonious intent.
The manner in which the pistol was loaded, and the possibility of death being produced by its discharge, considering the materials with which it was loaded, and the distance at which it was fired, would seem to be matters of evidence arising on the trial. Vide, on this subject, the case of The State v. Swails, 8 Ind. 524.
One of the petit jurors by whom the cause was tried, was one of the grand jurors who found the indictment. It sufficiently appears that the defendant, as well as his counsel, was ignorant of this fact until after the return of the verdict. The juror was, at the proper time, interrogated as to his competency, and disclaimed having formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, though he was not asked if he had been a member of the grand jury which found the indictment. The affidavit of the juror himself was filed in support of the verdict, in which he says he had, at the time of being examined, no opinion as to the defendant's guilt, and had forgotten the circumstance of his having been on the grand jury. A new trial was asked on this ground.
We think it clear that the juror was incompetent, and that the defendant was guilty of no negligence in not sooner discovering the fact. Had the incompetency of the juror been known to the accused at the time the jury was accepted and sworn, he could not afterward have been heard to make the objection. Barlow v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v. State
...was under no obligation to anticipate possible objections unless he had notice or some reason to suppose that such existed. Rice v. State, 1861, 16 Ind. 298, 300. Appellant being told by the juror that she did not know the victim in the case; that she did not know the family; and by answer ......
-
French v. State
...passed upon the question as jurors in the same case, are disqualified to be jurors to try the accused. 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. § 911; Rice v. State, 16 Ind. 298;Stewart v. State, 15 Ohio St. 155. A juror on a former trial that resulted in a mistrial is not competent to serve on the second trial......
-
State v. Pickett
...conclusion in Groome's Case, namely: Guykowski v. People, 1 Scam. 476;Schumaker v. State, 5 Wis. 324;Hill v. People, 16 Mich. 351;Rice v. State, 16 Ind. 298; and State v. Babcock, 1 Conn. 401. These cases are modified, if not overruled, in the following later decisions by the same courts: C......
-
State v. Pickett
... ... refer to other cases. The following cases do tend quite ... directly to support the conclusion in Groome's ... Case, namely: Guykowski v. People, 2 Ill. 476, ... 1 Scam. 476; Schumaker v. State, 5 Wis. 324; ... Hill v. People, 16 Mich. 351; Rice v ... State, 16 Ind. 298; and State v. Babcock, 1 ... Conn. 401. These cases are modified, if not overruled, in the ... following later decisions by the same courts: Chase v ... People, 40 Ill. 352; Davison v. People, 90 Ill ... 221; State v. Vogel, 22 Wis. 471; People v ... Scott, 56 ... ...