State v. Bass, Nos. 26536-26545.
| Docket Nº | Nos. 26536-26545. |
| Citation | 1 N.E.2d 927, 210 Ind. 181 |
| Case Date | May 20, 1936 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
210 Ind. 181
1 N.E.2d 927
STATE
v.
BASS, and eight other cases.
Nos. 26536-26545.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 20, 1936.
Hollis Bass, Roy Hullett, Mayme M. Hullett, Rice Madden and Estel Sarver were indicted for violations of the election law. The state demurred to defendants' answers on abatement. From judgments abating the indictments, the state appeals.
Affirmed.
[1 N.E.2d 927]
Appeal from Warrick Circuit Court; Philip C. Gould, Special judge.
Philip Lutz, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Caleb J. Lindsey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
W. D. Hardy, of Evansville, Addison Beavers, of Boonville, for appellees.
FANSLER, Judge.
Appellees were indicted for various violations of the election law (Burns' Ann.St.1933, § 29-101 et seq.). To the indictments all appellees filed answers in abatement, specifying eight reasons why the grand jury which returned the indictments was illegally drawn. To these answers the state demurred. The demurrers were sustained as to specifications 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the answers, and overruled as to specifications 3, 7, and 8.
Error is assigned upon the overruling of the demurrers, and upon the ground that ‘the court erred in rendering a judgment of acquittal of the appellees herein on their pleas in abatement.’
Specification 3 alleges in substance that the jury commissioners selected the names of twice as many persons as would be required by law for grand and petit jurors in the courts of Warrick county for all terms of said courts to commence within the year; that the names so selected were placed in the box furnished by the clerk, but that at the time said names were placed in the box there remained therein other names previously drawn by other jury commissioners, which had not been destroyed or emptied from said box, and that the box from which the grand jury which returned the indictment was drawn contained not only the names drawn by the jury commissioners, but such other and additional names.
[1 N.E.2d 928]
In specification 8 it is alleged that the box in which the names drawn by the jury commissioners were deposited was kept in an open and exposed place in the office of the clerk, where persons other than the clerk had access to it; that the box was old and worn, and that the hinges and fasteners on the lid could be lifted so that it was possible to insert in the box slips of paper with names written thereon; that the name of William E. Hart was twice drawn from the box, first on the 30th day of April, for petit jury service,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shack v. State, No. 1270S290
...that the system of selection is not arbitrary, see Harrison, supra, and complete impartiality should be sought. See, State v. Bass (1936), 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927. Thus, completely random selection is not a requirement as long as the system is impartial and not arbitrary. We should note,......
-
State v. Gortmaker, No. 119905
...provision in putting the selection process beyond suspicion, see Hammers v. State, 337 P.2d 1097, 1104 (Okl.Cr.App.1959); State v. Bass, 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927, 928, (1936), or the probability of unfairness. As the United States Supreme Court observed, in a similar "Fairness of course r......
-
Anderson v. State, No. 27451.
...has included among those eligible.’ Here a petit jury was in question. A plea in abatement was sustained in State v. Bass, 1936, 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927, where it appeared that names selected by former jury commissioners were left in the box when the new names were placed therein, that t......
-
State ex rel. Reichert v. Youngblood, No. 28308.
...of grand juries. This has been held cause for sustaining a plea in abatement to an indictment. In the case of State v. Bass, 1935, 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927, defendant was indicted for violation of the election laws. The defendant filed an answer in abatement alleging that at the time the ......
-
Shack v. State, No. 1270S290
...that the system of selection is not arbitrary, see Harrison, supra, and complete impartiality should be sought. See, State v. Bass (1936), 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927. Thus, completely random selection is not a requirement as long as the system is impartial and not arbitrary. We should note,......
-
State v. Gortmaker, No. 119905
...provision in putting the selection process beyond suspicion, see Hammers v. State, 337 P.2d 1097, 1104 (Okl.Cr.App.1959); State v. Bass, 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927, 928, (1936), or the probability of unfairness. As the United States Supreme Court observed, in a similar "Fairness of course r......
-
Anderson v. State, No. 27451.
...has included among those eligible.’ Here a petit jury was in question. A plea in abatement was sustained in State v. Bass, 1936, 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927, where it appeared that names selected by former jury commissioners were left in the box when the new names were placed therein, that t......
-
State ex rel. Reichert v. Youngblood, No. 28308.
...of grand juries. This has been held cause for sustaining a plea in abatement to an indictment. In the case of State v. Bass, 1935, 210 Ind. 181, 1 N.E.2d 927, defendant was indicted for violation of the election laws. The defendant filed an answer in abatement alleging that at the time the ......