State v. Eddington

• Decision Date: 17 July 1926
• Docket Number: No. 4084.,4084.
• Citation: 286 S.W. 143
• Parties: STATE v. EDDINGTON.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

286 S.W. 143

STATE v. EDDINGTON.

No. 4084.

Springfield Court of Appeals. Missouri.

July 17, 1926.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pemiscot County; E. P. Dorris, Judge.

Dick Eddington was convicted of possessing whisky, and he appeals. Reversed, and cause remanded.

Ward & Reeves, of Caruthersville, for appellant.

COX, P. J.

Defendant was convicted on a charge of unlawful possession of corn whisky and has appealed. On voir dire examination of the jury panel, it developed that one member of the panel had served on the regular panel of jurors in that county within a year. He was challenged as disqualified on account of his previous service within a year. This was overruled and exception saved. Section 6616, Rev. Stat. 1919, after providing the manner in which the regular panel of jurors for a term of court shall be selected, ends with the following provision:

"Provided further that no person shall be summoned as such standing juror twice within the period of one year in any court of record."

It has been uniformly held in this state that provisions of the statute providing for summoning jurors are merely directory and not mandatory. State v. Pitts, 58 Mo. 556; State v. Williams, 136 Mo. 293, 307, 38 S. W. 75; State v. Albright, 144 Mo. 638, 642, 46 S. W. 620; State v. May, 172 Mo. 630, 72 S. W. 918; State v. Faulkner, 175 Mo. 546, 578, 75 S. W. 116.

We think the provision in the present statute is primarily for the benefit of the party summoned as a juror, and, should he ask to be excused because he had served on the regular panel within a year, his request should be granted; but we do not think a party litigant can complain on that ground alone unless he can show that his interest might be injuriously affected in some way by the retention of the juror on the panel. No showing of that kind was made in, this case. That point must be ruled against appellant.

The officers in serving the search warrant found whisky buried in the ground by the side of a small barn on the premises of defendant. That made a prima facie case for the state. The defendant admitted that the whisky was found there, and testified that he knew nothing about it and was opposed to whisky being brought on his premises. Also, that the little barn was at the time rented by him to a negro who batched in the barn and had a stove and some cooking utensils and bedclothes and lodged there and worked for a neighbor. He was corroborated as to the negro living in the barn by other witnesses. The officers found no furniture in the barn except a stove. A barrel of mash buried in the ground was found in the barn. All of this made it a question for the jury whether the negro really occupied the barn, and we are of the opinion that appellant's demurrer to the testimony was properly overruled.

Defendant testified in his Own behalf. He also offered evidence to show a good reputation as a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. On cross-examination of one of defendant's character witnesses, the prosecuting attorney asked the witness the following questions:

"Q. Of course, you didn't have anything to do with his liquor he had there? A. No, sir.

"Q. Didn't you know you had been there on several occasions, Mr. Reynolds, and you and Dick (the defendant) drank white mule together? A. No, sir; we never had a drink together in our lives."

This line of examination was objected to and overruled. The personal conduct of defendant was not a proper matter to be brought out on cross-examination of a character witness....