Stoner v. State

• Decision Date: 30 June 1836
• Citation: 4 Mo. 368
• Parties: STONER v. THE STATE.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

4 Mo. 368

STONER

v.THE STATE.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June Term, 1836.

ERROR FROM THE FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT.

WASH, J.

The plaintiff in error was indicted in the Circuit Court, for assaulting with intent to wound, contrary to the statute, &c. There was a verdict and judgment against Stoner, who moved first for a new trial and then in arrest of judgment, both of which motions were overruled, and he now prosecutes his writ of error to reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court. The indictment is as follows: “State of Missouri, county of Franklin, ss. In the Circuit Court, August term, 1835. The grand jurors for the State of Missouri, impanneled, sworn and charged, for the body of the county of Franklin aforesaid, upon their oath, present that George Stoner, late of the county of Franklin aforesaid, labourer, on the first day of August, in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, with force and arms, at the county of Franklin aforesaid, in and upon one Harrison Bray, in the peace of God then and there being, then and there did make an assault, and then and there, with a knife, which he the said George Stoner had and held in his right hand, did assault him the said Harrison Bray, with an intent, him the said Herrison Bray to wound, contrary to the form of the statute,” &c.

In the act of impanneling the traverse jury at the trial in the Circuit Court, “one of the persons summoned on the venire, on his voir dire, stated that he had formed an opinion from having conversed with the defendant on the subject of the charge in the indictment, but that he then felt himself in a state of mind to do justice between the parties; whereupon he was told by the court to stand aside.” The original panel returned by the sheriff, had not been exhausted when said juror was directed to stand aside, and a jury was taken from said original panel, the conduct of the court in ordering the juror to stand aside, was excepted to at the time, and is now assigned for error. It is insisted by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, that the act of the court in directing the juror to stand aside, was in effect a challenge of the juror by the court; and that the court has no right of challenge, either peremptory or for cause, &c. It does not appear, at whose instance the juror was examined on his voir dire. We are informed by counsel that it is the course of practice in the Circuit Court, to examine jurors on their voir dire before swearing them in chief--to the end, that an...