Stinson v. State
Citation | 135 So. 571,223 Ala. 327 |
Decision Date | 28 May 1931 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 633. |
Parties | STINSON v. STATE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Rehearing Denied June 25, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; F. W. Hare, Judge.
Dan Stinson was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
C. L Hybart, of Monroeville, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The appellant complains that the court, in advance of the day set for his trial, excused three of the jurors drawn and summoned for the trial, and, pertinent to this question, the bill of exceptions recites that:
Under the general law regulating the selection and impaneling of jurors for the trial of capital felonies, prior to the enactment of the present statute (Acts 1919, pp. 1040-1042, now sections 8644-8648, Code), it was repeatedly ruled by this court that it was within the power of the trial court, upon the organization of the regular juries for the week at which the capital cases were set, to excuse jurors drawn and summoned on the regular juries, "for good and sufficient reasons then made known to the Court," and usually entered of record. Fariss' Case, 85 Ala. 1, 4 So. 679; Plant's Case, 140 Ala. 52, 37 So. 159; Moseley's Case, 107 Ala. 74, 17 So. 932; Maxwell's Case, 89 Ala. 150, 7 So. 824; Thomas v. State, 124 Ala. 48, 27 So. 315; Williams v. State, 144 Ala. 14, 40 So. 405.
In Fariss' Case, first above cited, it was observed:
Fariss' Case, 85 Ala. 4, 4 So. 679, 680. (Italics supplied.)
While the statutes of the time these decisions were rendered provided that the "jurors summoned" (Code 1886, § 4449), or " the panel of petit juries organized for the week" the case was set for trial should constitute a part of the special venire for the trial, there was no provision in the statute then, as now, that the jurors constituting the venire for the trial of capital cases, including those drawn for the week the case was set for trial, should be summoned " to appear in court on the day set for the trial of the defendant. " Section 8644, Code 1923; Carmack v. State, 191 Ala. 1, 67 So. 989. (Italics supplied.)
Nor did the statute provide then, as it does now, that " on the day set for the trial if the cause is ready for trial, the court must inquire into and pass upon the qualifications of all the persons who appear in court in response to the summons to serve as jurors, and shall cause the names of all those whom the court may hold to be competent jurors to try the defendant or defendants to be placed on lists," etc. Section 8645, Code 1923. (Italics supplied.)
No doubt the Legislature in the enactment of this statute regarded these matters of importance to a defendant who was being placed on trial for his life, and mere matters of exceeding "inconvenience in practice" must yield to these statutory rights. Blevins v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 817.
In Sullivan v. State, 102 Ala. 135, 15 So. 264, 266, 48 Am. St. Rep. 22, this court, applying a local statute applicable to Dallas county, strikingly similar, if not identical with the statute now in force, where the trial court on the day set for the trial ex mero motu excused one of the regular jurors because of a misnomer as to his Christian name, the court, speaking through Brickell, C.J., observed:
confers. Parsons v. State, 22 Ala. 50. There should not be interference with this right, further than the statute sanctions.
The juror was not incompetent. There was no disqualification; no request to be excused because service would be oppressive. The only reason for his discharge was the misnomer of his Christian name,-a misnomer not affecting his identity, for by it he had been summoned, and to it he responded; an error which, by the express terms of the statute, is immaterial; not ground for quashing the venire, or a continuance of the cause. The court erred in the discharge of the juror. The error, it may be, was not of practical injury to the defendant. We deem it safer, however, to adhere to the long-settled rule that, when error is shown, the presumption of injury arises, which must be clearly repelled by the record, or the judgment will be reversed. 1 Brick. Dig. p. 780, § 100." See, also, Smith v. State, 183 Ala. 10, 62 So. 864.
While section 8614, brought forward from the Code of 1907, and long a part of the law, providing: "The court may excuse from service any person summoned as a juror if he is disqualified or exempt, or for any other reasonable or proper cause, to be determined by the court," is not to be overlooked, it was not incorporated in article 7, c. 311 (Code 1923, p 193,§ 8644 et seq.) dealing especially with the "Mode of Selecting and Empaneling Juries in Capital Cases," and cannot be construed as emasculating or modifying the provisions of sections 8644, 8645, which require the court to order the persons constituting the venire for the trial of capital cases, summoned to appear on the day the case is set for trial, and require the court, on the day set for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burns v. State
...week in view of the law which has application to Jefferson County in the trial of such cases; nor that the principle of Stinson v. State, 223 Ala. 327, 135 So. 571, Smallwood v. State, 235 Ala. 425, 179 So. 217, is here controlling. "Under the statutes which provide for a special venire in ......
-
Roan v. State
...on the defendant do not warrant quashing the venire, unless prejudice results. Evans v. State, 209 Ala. 563, 96 So. 923; Stinson v. State, 223 Ala. 327, 135 So. 571; Sullivan v. State, 23 Ala. App. 10, 119 So. McNutt v. State, 23 Ala. App. 43, 121 So. 432. And inconvenience must yield to de......
-
Wilson v. State
... ... furnished the defendant and from which [243 Ala. 10] the jury ... was to be selected, using the required method of striking the ... name from said list of jurors ... It is ... a fundamental rule that a juror should be impartial between ... the parties. Stinson v. State, 223 Ala. 327, 135 So ... 571. In criminal trials great care should be exercised to ... preserve to accused his constitutional right to a fair trial ... by an impartial jury. In such cases the court should resolve ... any doubt as to the competency of a juror in favor of the ... ...
-
Thigpen v. State
...week in view of the law which has application to Jefferson County in the trial of such cases; nor that the principle of Stinson v. State, 223 Ala. 327, 135 So. 571, and Smallwood v. State, 235 Ala. 425, 179 So. 217, is here We find this authority determinative under the facts of this case. ......