State v. Stephens

• Citation: 189 S.W. 630,195 Mo.App. 34
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. LEE STEPHENS, Appellant
• Decision Date: 22 December 1916
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

189 S.W. 630

195 Mo.App. 34

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. LEE STEPHENS, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Springfield

December 22, 1916

Appeal from Howell County Circuit Court.--Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Judgment affirmed.

J. L Bess, Prosecuting Attorney for respondent.

M. E Morrow for appellant.

ROBERTSON P. J. Farrington and Sturgis, JJ., concur.

OPINION

ROBERTSON, P. J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the Local Option Law upon an indictment found by a grand jury, fined $ 600 and sentenced to eight months in jail. He appeals.

There are but two questions involved. One of them is that the trial court erred in accepting as a juror, over defendant's objection, one who was a member of the West Plains' Commercial Club, the place at which the crime was committed, and was present at a meeting of that organization when a resolution was adopted reading as follows:

"Whereas this Commercial Club stands for law, and its enforcement, for the conviction and punishment of all violators of the law so far as possible, so as to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens: and, deploring the fact that there has lately been an unusual amount of law violations especially of the Local Option Law:

"Therefore, Resolved, First--that this Commercial Club heartily commend the grand jury lately in session for their faithful work.

"Second, that we urge and insist on the rigid prosecution of all who were indicted by said grand jury, and that they be punished according to law, without any paroles or stay of execution believing this is the only way to crush out crime.

"Third, that this club render all the assistance we can to the prosecuting attorney and court in the prosecuting of these cases."

The juror testified that he thought that the resolutions were unanimously adopted by the club. He did not testify that he voted for the resolution. "Unanimously" when used in this connection, does not always mean that everyone present voted for the proposition upon which action was thus taken, but it may, and generally does, mean, when a viva voce vote is taken, as in this case that no one voted in the negative. If the juror voted for the adoption of this resolution and it referred, which the testimony does not disclose, to indictments of a grand jury which included the one involved here, yet the juror expressed himself only as a good citizen in favor of punishing, according to law, the violators of the Local Option Law and expressed himself as against paroles. The resolution declared, and the juror concurred in it if he voted, that the club render assistance to the prosecuting attorney and the court in the prosecution of the cases. There is no testimony that any action was taken by the club or any members thereof along that line. The most that can be said of this resolution is that it and those voting in favor thereof declared for law...