State v. Strickland
| Decision Date | 01 May 1889 |
| Docket Number | 10,386 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE OF LOUISIANA v. A. H. STRICKLAND ET ALS |
APPEAL from the Sixteenth District Court, Parish of St. Helena. Brame, J.
John H Stone, District Attorney, for the State, Appellant.
W. F Kernan and Ried & Ried, for Defendants and Appellees.
The State appeals from a judgment which sustained a motion to quash an indictment for murder returned against the defendants.
The ground of the motion was the illegality of the drawing of the venire of the jury from which the grand jury had been formed for the reason that the clerk of the court, at the time of said drawing, had not been sworn as a jury commissioner.
The proof is that the clerk had not taken an oath as jury commissioner at the time of drawing the venire for that term and our jurisprudence has settled that such a defect will vitiate an indictment returned by a grand jury drawn from such a venire. State vs. Williams, 30 Ann. 1028; State vs. Vance, 31 Ann. 398; State vs. Bradley, 32 Ann. 402; State vs. Thompson, 32 Ann. 879; State vs. Conway, 35 Ann. 350.
But the contention on the part of the State is that the motion to quash was not made in time, as it was made after arraignment and plea of not guilty, and because it was not made on the first day of the term as required by Section 11 of Act 44 of 1877, which reads:
"That all objections to the manner of drawing juries, or to any defect or irregularity than that can be pleaded against any array or venire, must be urged on the first day of the term, or all such objections shall be considered as waived, and shall not afterwards be urged."
It is very clear to our minds that this legislation was prompted by the frequent rulings of the courts tending to cure a vicious practice on the part of defendants in criminal prosecutions, who would take their chances of an acquittal before a defective jury, and who would, in case of conviction urge irregularities in the formation of the jury, which they should have set up in the preliminary stages of the trial.
But it is quite plain, and in fact it is conceded in this case, that the letter of the statute cannot be rigidly enforced in all instances; and that it will not apply to a case in which the offense charged was committed after the first day of the term.
It is equally clear that it could not defeat a motion filed by a defendant who was accused or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wilson
...as waived, and shall not afterwards be urged.' In 1889, while the above statute was in force and effect, the case of State v. Strickland, 41 La.Ann. 513, 6 So. 471, was There the offense, murder, had been committed after the time fixed in the statute in which to object and plead 'to the man......
- State v. Price
- Girot v. Graham
- State v. Crawford