Schnell v. State

• Decision Date: 10 April 1893
• Citation: 17 S.E. 966,92 Ga. 459
• Parties: SCHNELL v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

17 S.E. 966

92 Ga. 459

SCHNELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

April 10, 1893

Syllabus by the Court.

1. It is no cause of challenge to the array that 12 out of the 18 jurors constituting the array had just served as a jury for the trial of another person indicted for a like offense growing out of the same transaction involved in the pending indictment against the accused, that a verdict of guilty was rendered in that case, and that the witnesses and the evidence in the present case would be the same as they were in the former. If the matter of the challenge was good at all, it would not set aside the panel, but would be available only by challenges to the polls.

2. In trials for misdemeanors there is no right to examine a juror upon his voir dire without first challenging him, and assigning a cause of challenge. This must be done before the juror is sworn, unless the cause of challenge be unknown till afterwards. Where it does not appear to the reviewing court that any particular juror was challenged, or that any cause of challenge was assigned, or at what stage of the proceedings the request was made to examine jurors upon their voir dire, the refusal of the court to put each and every one of the jurors on his voir dire at the request of counsel for the accused cannot be held erroneous, the onus of showing error being upon the party who alleges it.

Error from city court of Columbus; J. L. Willis, Judge.

William Schnell, alias William Jenkins, was convicted of betting, and brings error. Affirmed.

The following is the official report:

Indictment for playing and betting. The first exception is to the sustaining of a demurrer to defendant's challenge to the array of jurors put upon him. The ground of challenge was that there were 18 jurors in the array, defendant and the state each having but three strikes; that 12 of the 18 had heard and passed upon the case against another party charged with playing and betting, and the same game in which this defendant is so charged; that said 12 jurors out of the 18 had heard and passed upon the testimony against this other party, and had formed and expressed an opinion by finding him guilty; and that the same witnesses which were in the other case are in the present case, and the state relies upon these same witnesses, and none other, whose testimony will be the same against him as it was in the other case, which was tried immediately before the present...