State v. Hall.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1888 |
| Citation | 31 W.Va. 505 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | State v. Hall. |
When a jury is to be impanelled in a felony-ease, it is not necessary to put the names of those summoned into a box and draw from such box the names of twenty jurors. The law is satisfied if the sheriff selects them. (p. 507.)
The admissions of the prisoner are competent evidence tending to prove the corpus delicti, (p. 509.)
6. Evidence Statements Made on Preliminary Examination.
No statement made by one accused of crime, while a witness testifying on his own behalf before a justice on his preliminary examination, can be used against him on his trial. Code, ch. 152, § 20. (p. 507.)
4. Attorneys-at-law Argument op Counsel Limitation as to Time.
In a criminal trial the court has a discretion to limit the time to be consumed by counsel in their arguments to the jury, a discretion with which the appellate court will not interfere, unless the record shows clearly that injustice was done the prisoner by such limitation. Under the circumstances of the case, held, that one and three quarter hours on each side was not an unreasonable limitation, (pp. 507, 508.)
French & French and C. W. Smith for plaintiff in error.
Attorney-General Alfred Caldwell for the State.
Johnson, President:
This is an indictment jointly found against St ape Hall, Bailey Hall, and Will Cox, whose real name was J. W. Shores, and he was tried and convicted in that name,. The statement of the case will be found in the preceding case of State v. Shores, supra 491. The prisoner was convicted and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for one year. To the judgment he obtained a writ of error.
He assigned the following errors, which have been passed upon in the Case of Shores, supra: First, the overruling of the demurrer, for the same reasons stated in Shores's Case; second, permitting the attorney for the State to strike off' two jurors from the panel of twenty; third, because the sheriff and his deputies were not sworn each day they had charge of the prisoner; fourth, because the attorney for the State was not required to elect on which count in the indictment he would proceed. He was not prejudiced by any of these rulings so decided in Shores's Case.
He further assigned as error that the panel of twenty jurors was not selected by ballot. Section 3 of chapter 159 of the Code provides that etc. The bill of exceptions shows that when the case was called for trial the sheriff, under the direction of the court, selected from the jurors attending upon the court, who had been duly drawn and summoned according to law, a panel consisting of twenty of said jurors. It being shown that by an order of this court, made at the last November term, twenty four jurors were directed to be drawn and summoned to attend this term, and that they were so drawn and summoned; that twenty three of said twenty four attended in obedience to said summons, of whom two have been excused on account of sickness before the calling of this case, leaving only twenty one of the said jurors in attendance, out of which the sheriff, under direction of the court, put the names of twenty in the box, in this case, without selecting by ballot. The prisoner, Bailey Hall, moved to quash the panel because it was illegally made up. The court did not err in refusing to quash the panel. The statute does not require that after they have been drawn and summoned to attend their names should be put in a box and drawn therefrom by ballot. We see no irregularity in selecting the panel.
It is also assigned as error that the court permitted the prosecuting attorney to prove the statement made by the prisoner when he was before the justice on his preliminary examination. This was error. Code, ch. 152, § 20, provides that "in criminal prosecution other than for perjury, evidence shall not be given against the accused of any statement made by him as a witness upon a legal examination." The proving of such statement made against the prisoner of what he said while a witness on his preliminary examination was against the pro visions of the statute.
It is also insisted that the court erred in limiting counsel in their arguments to one and three-quarter hours on each side. The court asked counsel on each side what time they wanted, and, counsel naming no time, the court fixed one and three-quarter hours on each side. The attorney for the State answered that it was sufficient for the State, and the prisoner's counsel objected to being limited, but named no time they desired to occupy, and objected and excepted to the limitation. We decided in Shores's Case, supra, that the limitation of counsel in a felony case is within...
To continue reading
Request your trial