State v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 07 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | No. 13684.,13684. |
| Citation | 227 S.W. 647 |
| Parties | STATE v. JACKSON. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; John A. Rich, Judge.
Izora Jackson was convicted of violation of local option, and appeals. Affirmed.
Don C. Carter, of Sturgeon, and E. C. Anderson, of Columbia, for appellant.
George S. Starrett, of Columbia, for the State.
On September 14, 1918, the prosecuting, attorney of Boone county filed an information in the circuit court charging defendant, Izora Jackson, a colored man, with selling intoxicating liquor to one John Crosswhite, also colored, in violation of the Local Option Law. The defendant was arrested, arraigned on October 7, 1918, and pleaded not guilty. The case was set for trial November 18, 1918. Defendant appeared in person and by attorney and filed an application for change of venue, alleging prejudice of Hon. David H. Harris, judge of said court, against him, and that defendant could not have a fair trial in said court. And on November 19, 1918, defendant through his attorney presented his application to the court for a change of venue, alleging prejudice against him in the minds of the inhabitants of Boone county, and for the further reason that the regular judge of said court, on. David H. Harris, was prejudiced against him. And on the same day Judge Harris granted a change of venue from him, the said judge, and on said 19th day of November, 1918, the prosecuting attorney and the attorney for defendant failing to agree upon and elect a special judge to sit in the trial of said cause and to hear and determine said application for change of venue on account of the alleged prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of Boone county against defendant, the said Judge Harris requested Hon. John A. Rich, judge of the criminal court of the Fifteenth judicial circuit of the state of Missouri, to sit in this cause and to try the same, and to hear and determine said application for a change of venue on account of the alleged prejudice in the minds of the inhabitants of Boone county; and the cause, on the application for change of venue, was by the court continued to November 21, 1918.
On November 21, 1918, the court Hon. John A. Rich sitting, after hearing the testimony of the witnesses thereon, overruled the application of defendant for a change of venue, and set the cause for trial on November 29, 1918.
By agreement of parties the cause was continued from term to' term until August 29, 1919, and was specially set for hearing on that day.
On August 29, 1919, the case was called. Twenty men were called upon the jury panel and sworn to answer questions, etc. Upon the voir dire, after counsel for the state had asked the usual qualifying questions, and during the interrogation by counsel for defendant, the following occurred:
To which ruling of the court defendant, by his counsel, then and there at the time duly excepted, and saved his exceptions.
A jury of 12 men were duly selected from the panel and the cause was tried. The jury found the defendant guilty and assessed his punishment at a fine of $750 and six months imprisonment in the county jail. From this verdict the defendant appealed, and now alleges two grounds of reversal, as follows:
(1) Because the court erred in overruling defendant's application for change of venue.
(2) Because the court erred in overruling defendant's challenge to 19 of the panel who appeared as jurors in the city of Columbia.
We will discuss these two points in the order in which they are presented.
I. Application for Change of Venue. Section 5179, Rev. Stat. 1909, provides that an order of removal shall be made on the application of defendant in criminal cases, as specified in the two preceding sections (5177 and 5178), and section 5180 defines the procedure by which the removal may be had, and is as follows:
"The petition of the applicant for a change of venue shall set forth the facts or grounds upon which such change is sought, and such petition shall be supported by the affidavit of petitioner and the affidavit of at least two credible disinterested citizens of the county where said cause is pending, and the truth of the allegations thereof shall be proved, to the satisfaction of the court, by legal and competent evidence, and the prosecuting attorney may in such case offer evidence in rebuttal of that submitted in support of such application; the court, or judge in vacation, shall fix the number of witnesses for which the state or county will be liable: Provided, that reasonable previous notice of such application shall in all cases be given to the prosecuting attorney: And provided further, that if the facts alleged as the ground of the application be within the knowledge of the court or judge, he may order such removal of the cause without any such formal proof: Provided further, that if the application shall allege prejudice of the inhabitants of more than one county in the circuit in which the case is pending, the court may, upon proof of the allegations as herein provided for, order the case sent to some county in another circuit."
In the case at bar defendant presented witnesses for the purpose of proving that prejudice existed against defendant in the county of Boone, and the state availed itself of its statutory right to rebut same. After hearing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGee
...(2d) 877; 16 C.J. 618. (15) The court did not err in refusing a new trial on the ground that the jury panel was improperly drawn. State v. Jackson, 227 S.W. 647; State v. Grant, 152 Mo. 57; State v. Wiley, 109 Mo. 439. (16) The court did not err in refusing a new trial on the ground of newl......
-
State v. McGee
...877; 16 C. J. 618. (15) The court did not err in refusing a new trial on the ground that the jury panel was improperly drawn. State v. Jackson, 227 S.W. 647; State v. Grant, 152 Mo. 57; State v. 109 Mo. 439. (16) The court did not err in refusing a new trial on the ground of newly discovere......
-
The State v. Smith
...local prejudice was within the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Anderson, 252 Mo. 83; State v. Shoffer, 253 Mo. 320; State v. Jackson, 227 S.W. 647. Affidavits inadmissible to prove prejudice of inhabitants of county. State v. Bohanan, 76 Mo. 562. The petition supported by the ......
-
The State v. Bradford
...venue for local prejudice was in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Anderson, 252 Mo. 83; State v. Shoffer, 253 Mo. 320; State v. Jackson, 227 S.W. 647. Affidavits were inadmissible to prove prejudice of inhabitants of a county. State v. Bohanan, 76 Mo. 562. (d) The granting of a c......