State v. Cady

• Decision Date: 19 June 1888
• Citation: 14 A. 940,80 Me. 413
• Parties: STATE v. CADY et al.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

14 A. 940

80 Me. 413

STATE

v. CADY et al.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

June 19, 1888.

Exceptions from superior court, Cumberland county.

Joint liquor indictment. The opinion states the facts. Verdict, guilty. Exceptions by defendants.

Geo. M. Seiders, Co. Atty., for the State. Wilbur F. Lunt, for defendants.

PETERS, C. J. Two respondents were arraigned together under a joint liquor indictment, having the same counsel to answer for them. The judge allowed each respondent two peremptory challenges in impaneling the jury; and, when one respondent in person challenged a juror, the other disputed the challenge, claiming that he had a right to have the challenged juror on the panel. One respondent accepted, and the other rejected, the juror. The judge accorded to them two challenges each, while they were entitled to two jointly, and no more. In capital cases, each prisoner, under a joint trial, is entitled to his personal challenges. The statute, in that case, prescribes that "each person" shall be so entitled. In all other criminal cases it is "the party" that is entitled to the two challenges. If they do not agree upon the persons to be objected to, they lose their challenges. The presumption is, where respondents in criminal cases not lately capital consent to be tried together, or where the judge in his discretion orders a joint trial, that their interests are alike, and differences between them are uncalled for. By Rev. St. c. 134, § 20, it is provided that issues in fact in criminal cases not capital shall be tried by a jury drawn and returned in the same manner, and challenges shall be allowed, as in civil cases. By Rev. St. c. 82, § 74, it is provided that in civil cases, and criminal cases not capital, "each party" is entitled to two peremptory challenges when a jury is impaneled by lot. "Party" does not mean "person." Allowing challenges without cause is a merely statute right, not to be extended by construction. Where defendants are numerous, if each had personal challenges, it would require the presence of an impracticable number of jurors. This question is settled by several authorities. State v. Reed, 47 N. H. 466; Stone v. Se, Segur 11 Allen, 568; State v. Sutton, 10 R. I. 159. These cases show that several respondents are but one party, and are entitled to no more challenges than one defendant. But if, in his discretion, the judge extended a greater privilege than the statute concedes, neither respondent is in a position to complain of it. We have held in Snow v. Weeks, 75 Me. 105, that to a ruling of a judge in...