State v. Breen
| Decision Date | 31 March 1875 |
| Citation | 59 Mo. 413 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. MICHAEL BREEN, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Criminal Court.
Sam. Erskine, for Appellant.
J. C. Normille, for Respondent.
This was an indictment for grand larceny. The defendant was tried by a jury, was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years. After the jury had returned a verdict of “guilty” the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, and in arrest of the judgment, which motions being severally overruled and the defendant excepted and appealed to this court.
The main ground insisted on by the defendant for a new trial and for arresting the judgment, and the only ground insisted on in this court for the reversal of the judgment, is, that three of the jurors who tried the cause and found the verdict against the defendant, had not been selected by the jury-commissioner of St. Louis county and summoned by the marshal in conformity with the statute of this state “to provide a jury system in St. Louis county.” This act provides for the appointment of a jury-commissioner for St. Louis county in a manner therein named. The commissioner, after his appointment, is required to take an oath that he will faithfully perform the duties of his office, &c. It is made the duty of the commissioner “between the first day of July and the first day of September, in each year, in person or by deputy, to visit every house in the city and county of St. Louis, and obtain and take down the name and residence of every person (with the exception prescribed by the general law and those specified in the next succeeding section) who is qualified for and subject to the performance of jury duty.”
The 7th section of the act exempts persons belonging to military and fire companies, and those not acquainted with the English language, &c., from jury duty. The ninth section requires the commissioner to enter the names of all persons subject to the performance of jury duty in alphabetical order, in a book to be kept for that purpose, which is to be corrected from time to time as required by the act. The 10th section provides that notice shall be given so that if persons who are exempt from jury duty have been listed amongst the list of jurors they can appear and have their names erased, etc. The 13th section provides that after the list of jurors shall have been completed, the commissioner shall write each name on a separate ticket and deposit all the tickets in a hollow wheel to be provided for that purpose, where they shall remain until afterwards drawn out as directed by the act.
The 14th section provides that when jurors are required to serve in any court, etc., the sheriff or marshal shall obtain the names of persons to be summoned, from the commissioner, who shall furnish the same by drawing tickets from the wheel as directed in the act, so as to prevent any concert or partiality. And it is further provided that the tickets thus drawn shall not be put in the wheel again during the year in which they are drawn and that the drawing shall take place from time to time as jurors are required. The 15th section requires the sheriff or marshal to summon the persons whose names are furnished to attend as jurors at the time directed by the court, etc.
By the affidavits filed with the defendant's motion for a new trial, it is shown that three of the jurors who tried the defendant were not on the list of jurors furnished to the marshal by the jury-commissioner for the St. Louis Criminal Court, and this is, as before stated, the only ground urged by the defendant, in this court, for a reversal of the judgment. The general rule which seems to have been adopted in the different States of the Union is, that the mistake or informality of the officers charged with summoning, returning, selecting and impaneling the jury, will be no ground for a new trial, unless there has been fraud or collusion, or material injury to the defendant. (3 Whart. Cr. L., § 216.) It is not pretended that there was any fraud or collusion on the part of any of the officers concerned in selecting and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Anderson
...Defendants cannot object to the composition or organization of the grand jury. R. S., 1879, sec. 1772; State v. Pitt, 58 Mo. 556; State v. Breen, 59 Mo. 413; State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232; State v. Hart, 66 Mo. 208; State v. Pate, 67 Mo. 488. The court will not interfere with a verdict on the ......
-
Johnson v. State
...their names were on the last assessment roll or not was not prejudicial. (State v. Lowe, 56 Kans. 597; 12 Enc. Pl. & Prac. 276; State v. Breen, 59 Mo. 413; Kingen State, 46 Ind. 132.) Failure to interrogate a juror at the proper time precludes the right to raise a question of his competency......
-
Haehl v. The Wabash Railroad Company
...from the circumstances, a failure to comply with the statutory provisions is not reversible error. State v. Ward, 74 Mo. 253; State v. Breen, 59 Mo. 413; State Jennings, 98 Mo. 493; Vierling v. Brewing Co., 15 Mo.App. 125. Second. Under the laws especially applicable to the city of St. Loui......
-
Lee v. Baltimore Hotel Co.
...when no evidence was adduced that the rights of the plaintiff were prejudiced by the presence of a juror so summoned or selected. State v. Breen, 59 Mo. 413; Sec. 8751, S. 1929; Knight v. Kansas City, 138 Mo.App. 153, 119 S.W. 190; State v. Rouner, 333 Mo. 1336, 64 S.W.2d 916; State v. Rile......