Styles v. State

• Decision Date: 12 November 1907
• Citation: 59 S.E. 249,129 Ga. 425
• Parties: STYLES v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

59 S.E. 249

129 Ga. 425

STYLES v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 12, 1907

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a motion for new trial, predicated upon the improper conduct of certain of the jurors charged with the trial of the case recites that "the jurors, after they had been impaneled and before all the evidence had been submitted, read copies" of a certain "newspaper containing a certain editorial," which was "calculated to mislead the jurors, prejudice their verdict," etc., and there is no denial by the state, and the recitals of the motion are certified by the judge to be true, the motion and certificate will be construed to mean that the jurors actually read the editorial to which the objection related.

(a) The editorial complained of did not by name refer to the case on trial, but its reference was to cases generally of that class and was of such character as to comprehend, among others, the case on trial.

(b) It is improper for juries charged with the trial of a murder case to read from a newspaper editorials which directly or indirectly tend to influence their minds and to destroy their perfect freedom from bias or prejudice, either for or against the accused.

[Ed Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, § 2252.]

(c) Where jurors, while impaneled to try such case, read from a newspaper such an editorial, and in the motion for new trial it is affirmatively shown that neither the defendant nor his counsel consented thereto, and that neither of them knew of the fact until after verdict, it was erroneous for the court to refuse to grant a new trial.

[Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 15, Criminal Law, § 2252.]

Error from Superior Court, Ware County; T. A. Parker, Judge.

Daniel Styles was convicted under an indictment for murder, and he brings error. Reversed.

Where a motion for new trial predicated on the improper conduct of jurors recites that "the jurors, after they had been impaneled, and before all the evidence had been submitted, read copies" of a certain "newspaper containing a certain editorial," which was "calculated to mislead the jurors, prejudice their verdict," etc., and there is no denial by the state, and the recitals of the motion are certified by the judge to be true, the motion and certificate will be construed to mean that the jurors actually read the editorial to which the objection related.

The fourth ground of the motion for new trial complains that certain jurors, after they had been impaneled, and before all the evidence had been submitted, read copies of the Savannah Morning News, a daily newspaper containing a certain editorial which it is alleged was calculated to mislead the jurors, prejudice their verdict, and influence them in the performance of their duty, all of which was prejudicial to the cause of the defendant. Appropriate affidavits by the defendant and his counsel were submitted, to the effect that they did not know of the conduct of the jurors until after the verdict. The trial judge approved this ground of the motion, and certified that the recitals of fact were true. The editorial complained of was as follows:

"The Opinion of a Solicitor General. Commenting upon the outcome of the Lyle murder trial at Waycross, Solicitor General Bennett was quoted as saying: 'I have given the matter a great deal of thought, and I have come to the conclusion that human life is too cheap in this country, due to the fact that juries are too lax in enforcing the law.' Further along in his talk he said: 'There are entirely too many homicides in this and other counties. Take the Dominion of Canada, divided from this great country only by an imaginary line, and you will find that there are nearly 100 homicides in the United States to one in Canada. There is but one explanation. In Canada the law is enforced, and in the United States it is not. The law says that the punishment of a person convicted of murder shall be death, and it does seem to me that if this law were enforced, and the punishment meted out to persons where there is no doubt of their guilt, it would prove a great benefit, and deter others who are inclined to commit like crimes.' The foregoing is safe and sound doctrine. If it had the approval of juries generally, there wouldn't be an account of a homicide in the newspapers of this state every day or two. Only last Saturday we commented upon the deed of a stricter enforcement of the law against carrying concealed weapons; the occasion being reports of two homicides in the state on the previous day. Yesterday there was another homicide at Macon; the victim having just been indicted for the alleged cause of the crime. As to the truth or falsity of the charge that led to the shooting we do not undertake to express an opinion, but we do know that the law should have

been permitted to take its course. We cannot have safety for life and property if men are permitted to take the law into their own hands when they feel they have a grievance. As a rule there are two sides to every case, and the safety and well-being of society requires that a jury shall decide which is the right side, and measure out punishment to the guilty. It is impossible to predict where this thing is going to stop if men are permitted to go about their daily duties carrying concealed weapons, which they use promptly on various degrees of provocation, because they believe that the danger of being punished is very remote. We do not comment on the Lyle trial, because it is probable that the accused will have to face a jury again within a very few days; but we are free to say that there are scores of persons in this state guilty of shedding human blood who would now be in the penitentiary, or would have paid the penalty of their crimes on the scaffold, if absolute justice had been meted out to them. And what is true as to this state is true as to about every other state. It is true, as Solicitor General Bennett says, life is so cheap in this country that it is a difficult matter to get a jury to find a verdict of guilty, even when the evidence of guilt is overwhelming. In Canada the law against murder is enforced vigorously and swiftly. The consequence is: The number of homicides is small in comparison with the number in this country. What is needed is a stirring of the consciences of the people. They must have impressed upon them the sacredness of human life. When they have a proper regard for it, juries will not be swayed by sentiment or seek excuses to avoid their duty."

J. L. Crawley, W. F. Crawley, and L. A. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

Jno. W. Bennett, Sol. Gen., and Jno. C. Hart, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ATKINSON J.

We will deal at once with the fourth ground of the motion for new trial. It is expressly stated in the motion for new trial that the jurors read the paper which contained the editorial complained of. The judge certified the recital of facts to be true. It is thus made affirmatively to appear that the jurors read the paper. It is nowhere stated in so many words that they read the editorial, but there is no explanation by the jurors, nor any counter showing. It was in the paper, and, as we shall see, was of harmful character, and, in the absence of a denial, it will be presumed that the jurors read it. See, in this connection, Thompson & Merrian on Juries, § 395, and citations. The judge no doubt intended to certify that the jurors read the editorial. Had that not been the intention he could simply have certified that the jurors did not read the editorial and would thereby have avoided the question which counsel have argued and which we are called upon to decide. In the absence of denial, we will presume from the recitals in the motion and the judge's certificate that the editorial was in fact read by the jurors. This leads to the inquiry as to whether the fact of reading the article was misconduct upon the part of the jurors, and, if so, whether it was of such character as to require a reversal of the judgment refusing a new trial.

An examination of the editorial will show clearly that it is argumentative in favor of convictions in capital cases such as the one on trial. Either a casual or a most scrutinous reading of the article will lead to that conclusion, and to none other. It was not only argumentative, but almost of coercive character, in that it criticised juries for failure to convict. The charge inferentially made was that the conditions in this country were such that jurors would not convict in murder cases, "even where the evidence of guilt was overwhelming." It was stated that the remedy needed was a "stirring of the consciences of the people." What effect this appeal actually had upon the minds of the jurors it is impossible to say. That it was an irregularity follows from the fact that the article was read by the jurors after they had qualified, without the knowledge or consent of the court or of the defendant or his counsel. It was read after the jurors had been put upon their voire dire. Whether, after reading the article, the jurors would again have said that their minds were perfectly impartial between the state and the accused, or that there was no bias or prejudice resting upon their minds, either for or against the accused, we have no means of knowing. Those questions were not again put to the jurors. It is possible that the minds of the jurors may have been so influenced by the article as to render them unable to answer the statutory questions in such way as to have them competent to try the accused.

Again treating the article as an address to the jurors, it would be improper for at least two reasons: First, because it was made by one not authorized to participate in the trial in an advisory, or any other way;...