State v. Kelly Messer
Decision Date | 26 May 1925 |
Docket Number | (No. 5198) |
Citation | 99 W.Va. 241 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | State v. Kelly Messer |
Jury Juror is Incompetent to Try Criminal Cases if Opinion is Such He Could Not Give Due Weight to Presumption of Accused's Innocence or Would Not Acquit Unless Accused Should Prove Himself Innocent.
A juror is incompetent in a criminal case if his opinion is of such a decided character that he could not give due weight to the presumption of the innocence of the accused, or would not acquit unless the defendant should prove himself innocent.
.
Error to Circuit Court, Fayette County.
Kelly Messer was convicted of owning, operating, maintaining, possessing, and having an interest in a moonshine still, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded.
Hubard & Bacon, C. E. Mohan, Jr., and John T. Simms, for plaintiff in error.
Howard B. Lee, Attorney General, R. A. Blessing, Assistant Attorney General, and W. G. Brown, Commissioner of Prohibition, for the State.
The defendant prosecutes error to the judgment of the circuit court, sentencing him to four years confinement in the penitentiary upon the charge of owning, operating, maintaining, possessing and having an interest in a moonshine still.
December 22, 1922, prohibition officers, searching the home of Jess Barker, in the City of Montgomery, Fayette County, found therein sixty gallons of moonshine liquor, a still, and other articles appurtenant to a moonshine operation. After his arrest, apparently with the view of obtaining immunity from prosecution, Barker told the officers that the defendant was, and had been during the operation of the still in his house, a partner in the business. The defendant and Barker were indicted jointly for the offense in January, 1922. Barker, however, was never tried and, having been called by the State as a witness in this case, no doubt claims immunity from further prosecution under section 33, chapter 32-A, and section 25, chapter 159, Code, although he had been operating the still in his home for more than two years. Barker, his wife, son and brother testify that the defendant was interested in the operation of the still; some of them stating that he had furnished the parts for the apparatus. Another witness, a former tenant and, as it is claimed, an enemy, of defendant, also testified that the defendant had told him he was making liquor at Barker's house. The defendant denied all connection with the still, or its operation, and offered other testimony to establish his defense. As the evidence presents an issue properly determinable by the jury, it is unnecessary to analyze or narrate the same.
The following are assigned as errors committed by the trial court during the progress of the trial:
(1) The refusal to strike from the panel of twenty jurors the names of R. H. Thomas and Philip Atkinson.
Juror Thomas testified on his voire dire that he could not say whether the mere fact of defendant's indictment for violating the prohibition law would have any weight with him in making up his verdict; further stating, however, that he would not convict the defendant without being convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
After stating that he had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the juror Atkinson said:
"Well, people breaking the prohibition laws a man breaking the prohibition law most any one would have a prejudice against him, but I believe that I could give the man a fair and square deal myself."
Thereupon his examination proceeded as follows:
By Mr. Bacon, attorney for the defendant:
Examination by the Court:
The object of the law is to secure jurors whose minds are wholly free from bias or prejudice for or against the accused. State v. Hatfield, 48 W. Va. 561. This is the very basis for the great weight and sanctity given to their verdicts.
Those who administer the law must respect its wise and salutary rules of procedure in order that like respect for law and order may be inspired in others.
"A juror is incompetent in a criminal case if his opinion is of such a decided character that he could not give due weight to the presumption of the innocence of the accused, or would not acquit unless the defendant should prove himself innocent," 35 C. J. 352.
The juror Atkinson was clearly incompetent, That he would require all persons charged with crime to prove themselves innocent does not lessen his unfitness; nor is the error complained of cured by the objectionable juror having been stricken from the panel of twenty through a peremptory challenge. "A person charged by indictment with felony is entitled under the law to a panel of twenty jurors, each and all of whom shall be 'free from exception, ' from which panel the jury for the trial of the case is to be selected under section 3, chapter 159, Code." State v. Johnson and Devinney, 49 W. Va. 684.
The recent case of State v. Larue, pending on petition for rehearing, is cited by the prosecution to sustain the qualification of the two jurors under consideration. The juror whose qualification was questioned in that case stated that he had an impression from reports concerning the accusation against the defendant which would require evidence to remove; but that he was not sensible of any bias or prejudice for or against the accused of such nature as would prevent him from receiving both the evidence of the State and the evidence for the defendant and rendering a true and impartial verdict. It was there held that the trial court properly refused to reject the juror. Under that ruling we think...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gargiliana
...submitted to him as such juror, he is not a competent juror and should be ordered to stand aside * * *.' See State v. Messer, 99 W.Va. 241, 1281 S.E. 373, 40 A.L.R. 608; State v. Richards, 101 W.Va. 136, 132 S.E. 375. The determination of the qualification of a juror is a problem often diff......
-
State v. Riley
...salutary rules of procedure, in order that like respect for law and order may be inspired in others. * * *.' State v. Messer, 99 W.Va. 241, 245, 128 S.E. 373, 374, 40 A.L.R. 608. So basic and fundamental are our traditional requirements of fair trials of criminal cases by impartial juries t......
-
State v. Pratt
...whatsoever to the State are readily available. 200 S.E.2d at 866. See, State v. Wilson, supra; State v. Siers, supra; State v. Messer, 99 W.Va. 241, 128 S.E. 373 (1925); and State v. Hatfield, 48 W.Va. 561, 37 S.E. 626 It was therefore an abuse of discretion and reversible error for the cou......
-
State v. Bitz
...1, 7 N.W. 444 (1881).3 I.C. §§ 19-2017 and 19-2019(2).4 State v. Harness, 10 Idaho 18, 27, 76 P. 788 (1904); State v. Messer, 99 W.Va. 241, 128 S.E. 373, 40 A.L.R. 608, 610 (1925); People v. Redola, 300 Ill. 392, 133 N.E. 292 (1921); Annotation, Failure to Understand or Unwillingness to Acc......