State v. Roberts

• Decision Date: 02 July 1904
• Docket Number: 1,656.
• Citation: 77 P. 598,27 Nev. 449
• Parties: STATE v. ROBERTS et al.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

77 P. 598

27 Nev. 449

STATE v. ROBERTS et al.

No. 1,656.

Supreme Court of Nevada

July 2, 1904

Appeal from District Court, Humboldt County; S. J. Bonnefield, Jr. Judge.

Fred Roberts and others were convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeal. Reversed.

M. S Bonnefield, F. X. Murphy, and William Woodburn, for appellants.

James G. Sweeney, Atty. Gen., and H. Warren, for the State.

BELKNAP C.J.

The prisoners were convicted of murder in the first degree. A motion for a new trial was denied. They have appealed from the order and judgment.

In impaneling the trial jury, Richard Barry was examined. He stated, in substance, that he thought he had conversed with some of the witnesses, and with persons who pretended to know the facts; that he had read newspaper accounts of the crime that he had heard and read that deceased had been killed on a freight train east of Lovelock about August 20th, last, and prior to his death had identified the prisoners, or some of them, as the guilty parties; that he had formed and expressed an opinion with reference to the guilt or innocence of the prisoners; that his opinion became fixed and definite at the time he read and heard of the offense, and he then had such opinion, based upon what he had heard; and that he had expressed that opinion. He was then challenged on the ground that he had formed and expressed an unqualified opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. In cross-examination by the prosecution, he testified that his mind was not then in condition to render a verdict against the prisoners from what he had heard; that his opinion was formed upon general rumors, and from what he had read in the newspapers; that he would not refuse to give any one a fair trial and rest his verdict upon the law and evidence; that, if what he had heard and read was true, the prisoners were guilty, and, if untrue were not guilty, of the offense charged, and, if sworn as a juror, he would lay aside anything he had heard, and try the case upon the evidence and law, and render a true verdict accordingly. The court then asked him the following question: "I understand you to say you are conscious that, if you are sworn and accepted as a juror, you could put aside everything you have heard and read, and try the case according to the evidence and the law, and give the defendants a fair and impartial trial?" To which he answered, "I could." The court overruled the challenge. Defendants, whose peremptory challenges were exhausted before the completion of the jury, excepted.

Giving...