State v. Herold
| Citation | 123 P. 1076,68 Wash. 654 |
| Parties | STATE v. HEROLD. |
| Decision Date | 06 June 1912 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, Pierce County; W. O. Chapman Judge.
H. G Herold was convicted of attempted kidnapping, and he appeals. Affirmed.
James M. Harris and H. G. Rowland, both of Tacoma, for appellant.
J. L McMurray and A. O. Burmeister, both of Tacoma, for the State.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction upon an information charging appellant with the crime of attempted kidnapping.
The first error assigned is the refusal of the court below to grant a motion for a change of venue. This motion was based upon affidavits and clippings from newspapers which it is claimed so aroused public passion and prejudice as to prevent appellant from having a fair trial in Pierce county. The motion was resisted by counter affidavits on the part of the state. We have examined the showing upon this motion, and the ruling complained of must be sustained under the rule laid down in State v. Welty, 65 Wash. 244, 118 P. 9, that a reversal will not be granted upon this ground unless it clearly appears that the trial court in making its ruling abused the discretion vested in it by our statute to determine such applications. The record sustains the court's ruling in showing that the jury in the case was secured after an examination of 28 jurors, only 8 of whom were excused for cause either by the state or appellant. It is apparent there was no unusual difficulty in obtaining a jury satisfactory to appellant and to whom he was content to submit his cause.
The next error is directed against rulings of the trial court in refusing to discharge the jury and discharge the appellant when in the course of the trial it was discovered that a juror named Jernberg had not taken the oath either upon his voir dire or after such examination, when the jurors then in the box, including Jernberg, were sworn as trial jurors in the case. Upon this point the record discloses that Jernberg was one of the 12 men originally called into the jury box and occupied one of the rear seats; that, the box being full, the 12 veniremen were directed to arise and take the usual oath that all arose and the oath was administered in the usual manner. The examination of these 12 veniremen was then proceeded with as to their qualification as jurors, including Jernberg who was one of the veniremen remaining in the box after the state and appellant had made desired challenges and announced their willingness to accept the 12 men then in the box as the jury in the case. Thereupon the 12 men were directed to arise and take the oath as jurors in the cause, and the usual oath was administered, to which all apparently made assent. The trial then proceeded; witnesses were sworn and examined. During a recess the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smith, 4302--I
...States, supra; State v. Ridgley, supra. There could be no jeopardy before the jury was legally impaneled and sworn. State v. Herold, 68 Wash. 654, 656, 123 P. 1076 (1912). In the present case, the jury not having been sworn prior to the mistrial being declared, jeopardy did not attach. The ......
- Smith v. State
-
Godfrey v. State, 1-578A109
...when the trial starts and one of the jurors has not been sworn. State v. Smith (1976) 15 Wash.App. 725, 551 P.2d 765; State v. Herold (1912) 68 Wash. 654, 123 P. 1076. In the case at bar, a complete jury was not sworn; only ten of the members had taken the oath. We therefore hold that jeopa......
-
State v. Tharp
...he cannot be permitted to revoke his decision. Neither of our cases relied upon by defendant is in point. In State v. Herold, 1912, 68 Wash. 654, 123 P. 1076, 40 L.R.A.,N.S., 1213, neither the voir dire oath nor the oath to try the cause was given to the jury. The error was urged and correc......
-
Chapter §47.6 Analysis
...as given them on the trial." A legal jury does not exist until all qualified jurors have been impaneled and sworn. State v. Herold, 68 Wash. 654, 655-56, 123 P. 1076 (1912). The juror's oath and the court's instructions to the jury are the parties' "safeguard against possible bias or prejud......