State v. Pierson
| Decision Date | 15 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | 37625 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. W. E. PIERSON, Appellant |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union District Court.--H. H. CARTER and HOMER A. FULLER Judges.
Indictment for receiving deposits while bank was insolvent. Defendant was convicted, and appeals.
Reversed.
Higbee & McEniry, for appellant.
Ben J Gibson, Attorney-general, and Carl J. Stephens, Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.
I.
The judges of election of one precinct placed on the grand jury list their three names, contrary to Section 10867, Code of 1924. When the list was presented to the board of supervisors at the meeting held to canvass the votes, the names of the three judges were stricken from it, and the names of three other persons substituted, one of whom served on the grand jury returning the indictment now before us. The new names were selected by the supervisor for the district including the delinquent precinct. The substitution and the reason for it were called to the attention of the board. No record of the change was made in the board minutes. The members of the board of supervisors signed the list. The approval of the board, signed by the chairman, was indorsed upon the list. The list was stamped "filed," with the date and signature of the auditor. There is no contention that the list was not recorded in the auditor's office. The clerical work of striking the three names and writing in the names of the three substituted was done by the deputy county auditor. Section 10868, Code of 1924, provides:
"If the judges of election in any precinct fail to return any list as provided in the preceding section, the board of supervisors shall, at the meeting held to canvass the votes cast at such election, make and certify such list or lists for the delinquent precincts, and the auditor shall file such certified lists in his office and cause copies thereof to be recorded in the proper election books."
Defendant argues that the change was made by the deputy county auditor, and not by the board. The evidence is to the contrary. It is immaterial who did the clerical work. That the selection (or more properly, the nomination) was made by one supervisor, is immaterial. The board adopted it, and the amendment to the list was the act of the board. That the board acted, is clearly shown, and its action ought not to be annulled because it caused no entry thereof to be made in the minutes of its proceedings. At the oral argument, stress was laid on the use of the words "any list" in Section 10868:
"If the judges of election in any precinct fail to return any list as provided in the preceding section, the board shall * * * make and certify such list or lists for the delinquent precincts."
By the preceding section, 10867:
"The judges of election of the several precincts shall make selection of the requisite number of persons to serve as grand and petit jurors, and of talesmen, if any, and return separate lists of the names so selected * * * but shall not place on said lists the name of any person described in Section 10860, or judges or clerks of the election."
The failure spoken of is not merely a failure to return a physical document, but "any list as provided in the preceding section." The preceding section prohibits the placing on the list of the names of those who are by the statute disqualified. A list in violation of the express prohibition of the section is not a list "as provided" therein. The judges of election are required to make two, and in case of some precincts, three, jury lists. The grand-jury list is not the only one to be returned. The word "any" has different interpretations. In the Century Dictionary, one definition is: "In the singular, one, a or an, some * * *." See, also, 1 Words & Phrases 412. It may mean one of a number. Idem.
Qualified and disinterested jurors, grand and petit, must be available for the trial courts. The policy of the law is that jurors should be drawn from all parts of the county (or judicial division). To that end, an apportionment among the precincts is required. The substance of the requirement is that lists of qualified persons drawn from all precincts on the basis of the apportionment, made up by disinterested persons, shall be prepared and filed, ready for use in drawing jurors. Primarily, the judges of election are required to make the lists apportioned to their precinct, and from qualified persons, and on the apportioned basis. Judges of election know little of the statutes or of legal formalities, and are quite likely to be more or less inattentive to their printed instructions. It might very easily happen that their failure to attend to the qualifications of jurors would result in leaving one or more precincts largely, if not wholly, unrepresented on the grand and petit jury lists for two years, and the distribution of jurors thereby disturbed. The existence of a correcting body is not only desirable, but quite necessary. None is provided for, unless it is the board of supervisors. We think it would be too narrow a construction of Section 10868 to say that it gives no authority to the board to make a list if a purported one, or merely physical document, is returned, though it obviously disregards the requirements of Section 10867. When the judges of election placed their own names upon the list, they thereby violated the prohibition of that section. The list was not such a one "as provided" therein.
"The object of the statute is to prevent frauds, and to insure the proper and legal selection of sound and discreet persons to serve upon the jury." State v. Ansaleme, 15 Iowa 44.
See also, State v. Pierce, 90 Iowa 506, 58 N.W. 891; State v. Heft, 148 Iowa 617, 127 N.W. 830; State v. Carter, 144 Iowa 371, 121 N.W. 801. Informalities not prejudicing the accused will be disregarded. Idem. We are required to "examine the record, without regard to technical errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties, and render such judgment on the record as the law demands." Section 14010, Code of 1924. This is applicable to objections to grand jurors. State v. Pierce, 90 Iowa 506, 58 N.W. 891. In State v. Walker, 192 Iowa 823, 185 N.W. 619, and State v. Spangle, 193 Iowa 1001, 188 N.W. 596, the county auditor placed in the jury list names selected by himself. It was held that he had no authority to do so; that this was the function of the board of supervisors. The cases are not in point here. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial