Stark v. State
| Decision Date | 29 October 1923 |
| Docket Number | 23438 |
| Citation | 133 Miss. 275,97 So. 577 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | STARK v. STATE |
(In Banc.) January 1, 1920
CRIMINAL LAW. Jury. Failure to swear jurors until after state rested held error, but harmless.
In the trial of a felony case, three talesmen, who were members of the jury trying the defendant, were not sworn as required by section 2713, Code of 1906 (section 2206, Hemingway's Code), until after the state had finished its evidence and rested its case, when the oath was administered over the objection of the defendant. Held, that the action of the court in failing to administer the oath required by said statute was erroneous, but that the error was harmless because of the fact the oath was administered before the jury retired to consider their verdict.
APPEAL from circuit court of Tippah county, HON. A. D. PATTERSON Special Judge.
Walter Stark was convicted of an attempt to unlawfully manufacture intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Case affirmed.
B. N. Knox and Fred B. Smith, for appellant.
The record discloses that the regular panel having been exhausted during the trial of appellant, three talesmen were called from the bystanders to serve as jurors in the case. These three talesmen were not sworn as jurors until afted all the testimony for the state had been introduced, and after the jury had one time retired out of the presence of the court, then over the objection of the defendant in the lower court, the court directed the oath of jurors to be administered to the three.
The court overruled defendant's objection on the authority of Boroum v. State, 105 Miss. 887.
A close study of the Boroum case will reveal the fact that it is an authority in favor of the appellant in this case, and against the appellee. Therefore we desire to call the court's attention to this case, and request a close study of the opinion rendered on suggestion of error. This latter opinion in that case most strongly inferred, if it did not directly hold, that the failure to administer the oath to jurors until after the trial had been partially completed, was fatal error if taken advantage of, and objected to before same is cured by verdict as provided in section 1413 of the Code of 1906, section 1168 of Hemingway's Code.
On passing on the suggestion of error the court sustained its former opinion solely on the ground that defendant had not taken advantage of the error at the proper time, and same was cured by the statute heretofore referred to.
For the statute pertaining to the oath of petit jurors, see section 2713 of the Code of 1906, section 2206 of Hemingway's Code.
It will be noted from the language of this statute that they shall be sworn to try all issues which "may be submitted to them." It is clearly the intention of that statute that the oath shall be administered before the issue is submitted and not after. It is not to try all issues which have been submitted to them, but which "may be submitted to them." The word "may" as there used clearly refers to the future. All the issue on the part of the state were submitted to the jury in this case before a part of their number were shown.
Our court has frequently held that a jury within the meaning of the constitution must be composed of twelve men. Byrd v. State, 1 How. 163. They have also held that a verdict by six men, or eleven men, is absolutely void. Scott v. State, 70 Miss. 247, and Jones v. State, 27 So. 382. Therefore we see that the fact that nine of the jurors who tried this case were duly qualified makes no difference, if one was not qualified it is the same as if none were qualified. These twelve men, so selected, must be impaneled and sworn to try the case, and then and then alone do they become a jury within the meaning of the constitution. And I find that our own court has recently so held, in Miller v. State, 122 Miss. 39. The court quoted with approval from Howard v. State, 80 Tex. Cr. R. 588, 192 S.W. 770, L. R. A. 1917 D, 391.
The recent decision of this court in the case of Miller v. State, 122 Miss. 19, is decisive. It is true that in that case the defendant was charged with a capital offense, but the principle is the same. The defendant in this case was charged with a felony, and was entitled to have his case submitted to a legal jury. We can apply with equal force in this case the statement of the court in that case, as found on page 38 of the report:
S. C. Broom, Special Assistant Attorney-General for the state.
Counsel for appellant relies upon the case of Miller v. State, 122 Miss. 19, for a reversal, because of the failure to swear three of the jurors, as aforesaid. An examination of this case, however, will disclose that this is a construction of a special statute with reference to capital cases, the same being section 1483 of the Code of 1906. Whereas the section involved in the present case is 2713 Code of 1906, section 2206 of Hemingway's Code, which deals with petit jurors.
We confidently maintain that cases other than capital cases, are controlled by the rule laid down in the case of Boroum v. State, 105 Miss. 887. In this case the court in substance held: "That where in impaneling a jury seven of the jurors were not sworn until after the jury had retired to consider their verdict, when they were returned to the court room and were properly sworn, this defect was cured and could not be taken advantage of for the first time on appeal since under the Code of 1906, section 1413, so providing, no judgment shall be reversed after the same is rendered, for any defect which might have been taken advantage of before verdict, and which shall not have been so urged."
Now we submit that the same rule would apply in a capital case, except for the fact that there is a special statute, to-wit: Section 1483, Code of 1906, which is mandatory and absolutely requires that this special oath be administered in capital cases.
We make this distinction between capital cases and others: In a capital case it matters not whether a record shows that the cause of the defendant was prejudiced by failure to swear the jurors, because there is a statute which says that in capital cases they should be sworn in a certain way, whereas there is no such statute in other than capital cases, and in the absence of such a statute, then it must be shown that a failure to swear jurors was prejudicial to the rights of the defendant.
We submit that this sounds reasonable, just, and in keeping with the authorities herein cited. And if this be true then of course it is folly to say that the defendant's cause was prejudiced by this oversight on the part of the judge to swear these three jurors at the time they were accepted on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alston v. State
...Arizona v. Godfrey, 136 Ariz. 471, 666 P.2d 1080, 1082 (App.1983); Hollis v. Colorado, 630 P.2d 68, 70 (Colo.1981);13 Stark v. Mississippi, 133 Miss. 275, 97 So. 577 (1923); New York v. Morales, 168 A.D.2d 85, 87, 570 N.Y.S.2d 831, cert. denied, 78 N.Y.2d 970, 574 N.Y.S.2d 950, 580 N.E.2d 4......
-
Brown v. State
...Code of 1930; Miller v. State, 84 So. 161; McFarland v. State, 70 So. 563; Hill v. State, 73 So. 66; Boroum v. State, 63 So. 297; Stark v. State, 97 So. 577; Cummings v. State, So. 179. Under the Constitution of the State of Mississippi there is no power or authority vested in a court of th......
-
Brown v. State
...Code of 1930; Miller v. State, 84 So. 161; McFarland v. State, 70 So. 563; Hill v. State, 73 So. 66; Boroum v. State, 63 So. 297; Stark v. State, 97 So. 577; Cummings v. State, 155 So. Under the Constitution of the State of Mississippi there is no power or authority vested in a court of thi......
-
Columbian Mut. Life Assur. Society v. Penn
... ... by the covenant and this provision of the by-laws and this ... being so, the constitution gives way to the contract. On this ... point we state the express holding of our court in ... Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen v. Bunch, 115 ... Miss. 512 ... Naul & ... Yawn, for ... ...