State v. Anderson

• Citation: 140 Iowa 445,118 N.W. 772
• Parties: STATE v. ANDERSON.
• Decision Date: 15 December 1908
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

140 Iowa 445

118 N.W. 772

STATE

v.ANDERSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1908.

Appeal from District Court, Allamakee County; A. N. Hobson, Judge.

An indictment charging the defendant with the crime of adultery was set aside on his motion, and he was discharged. The State appeals. Reversed and remanded.H. W. Byers, Atty. Gen., and Chas. W. Lyon, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

William C. Anderson, for appellee.

SHERWIN, J.

One of the grand jurors serving at the time the indictment was found and returned was one of the judges of the election in Ludlow township, and another grand juror was clerk of the election board of Linton township. The motion assailed the indictment on the ground that these two members of the grand jury had been illegally and unlawfully selected by the election boards of which they were members and were incompetent to act as grand jurors under the provisions of section 337 of the Code Supplement of 1902. The section, so far as the same is material to the question before us, is in the language following: “Such lists shall be composed only of persons competent and qualified to serve as jurors, and the judges of election of boards of supervisors shall omit from said list the name of any person who has served as a grand or petit juror in any court of record since January first preceding. And if the name of any such person is returned, the fact that he has requested to be so returned, or has served as such juror in a court of record during the jury year, as defined in this chapter, shall be a ground for challenge for cause. The members of the election board or the board of supervisors when certifying to such lists shall state that the lists do not contain the name of any person who requested, directly or indirectly, that his name appear thereon.” Under this section, if the name of any person is returned at his request, it is a ground for challenge for cause. The plainly expressed intent of the statute is to exclude from service as a grand juror any person who shall directly or indirectly seek such service. The provision is a wise one for many reasons.

It is essential to the due administration of justice that criminal charges be investigated and tried by impartial triors, and this requirement may be entirely swept away if the grand jury may be composed of men who have sought to become members thereof. Nor do we deem it necessary to constitute a ground for challenge that the juror has expressly requested that his name be placed on the list returned. In our judgment it is enough if his language is fairly open to such construction. In this case it appears that in some instances the names of all of the members of the election board were placed on the list and returned as qualified jurors. While such...