Sullivan v. Padrosa

Citation50 S.E. 142,122 Ga. 338
PartiesSULLIVAN. v. PADROSA.
Decision Date07 March 1905
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

JURORS—VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION—NEW TRIAL —ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.

1. In civil as well as criminal cases jurors may be placed upon their voir dire, and examined as to their impartiality, but in such examination the questions should be limited to the partiality or impartiality of the jurors in reference to the particular case and the parties thereto.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 31, Cent. Dig. Jury, §§ 561-582.]

2. Where no general request is made that the jurors be examined as to their partiality, but aparty merely submits to the court three questions, which he asks be propounded to each of the jurors, two of which questions are proper and one improper, a refusal to allow the questions to be propounded is not cause for a new trial.

3. The practice of making to opposing counsel, in the hearing of the jury, a proposition to submit the case without argument, cannot be too strongly condemned; but such conduct will not be cause for a new trial when opposing counsel accepts the proposition, and invokes no ruling from the court as to the manner in which the proposition was submitted.

4. The evidence warranted the verdict.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from City Court of Brunswick; A. D. Gale, Judge.

Action by Benjamin Sullivan against B. Padrosa. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Sullivan, a negro, brought suit for damages on account of an assault and battery against Padrosa and Jackson. Jackson was not served, and Padrosa alone answered, denying the material allegations of the petition so far as they concerned him. There was a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff excepted to the overruling of his motion for a new trial. Besides the general grounds, the motion for a new trial contains an assignment of error upon the refusal of the court to allow the plaintiff to test the competency of the jurors by asking them the following questions: "(1) Have you any prejudice or bias resting on your mind for or against the plaintiff in this case? (2) Is your mind perfectly impartial between the plaintiff and defendant in this case? (3) Are you conscious of any prejudice against the plaintiff on account of his race, to wit, negro, that would affect your verdict in a suit against the defendant, who is a white man?" Complaint is also made in the motion because counsel for defendant, after the evidence was closed, in open court, in the hearing of the jury, stated, to plaintiff's counsel, "We are willing to agree to submit the case to the jury without argument."

Prank H. Harris, for plaintiff in error.

Kay, Bennet & Conyers, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. 1, 2. Trial by jury necessarily means trial by an impartial jury. The Constitution in terms declares that the jury in criminal cases shall be impartial. Civ. Code 1895, § 5702. Under the English practice, when the competency of a juror in a criminal case was challenged, the court placed the juror upon his voir dire, and propounded or caused to be propounded to him such questions as would demonstrate whether he was partial or impartial in the particular case. This was the practice in Georgia prior to 1856. In that year the act now embraced in Pen. Code 1895, § 975, was passed, which provided that certain questions should be asked in felony cases to determine a juror's competency in the particular case. The juror's competency can be generally determined by his answers to the statutory questions, but it has been held that it is proper for the court to explain to the jury the full intent and meaning of these questions, in order that the answers by the juror may be intelligent; and, while the settled rule seems to be that neither the state nor the accused has a right to ask any additional questions, the court may, in its discretion, properly explain to the juror the meaning of the statutory questions. Pines v. State, 21 Ga. 227 (2); Dumas v. State, 65 Ga. 471 (3); Fogarty v. State, 80 Ga. 450 (9), 5 S. E. 782; Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69 (9), 11 S. E. 814. In misdemeanor and civil cases there is no statutory provision regulating the method to be adopted by the court in determining the competency of the juror, but the settled rule is that either party has a right to request that the jurors be put upon their voir dire, in order that their competency may be determined. When such request is made, it is the duty of the court to propound, or cause to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Nobles v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 13 Diciembre 1906
    ...of the prisoner at the bar?" No juror was ruled competent except such as answered that question in the negative. In Sullivan v. Padrosa, 122 Ga. 338, 50 S. E. 143, Mr. Justice Cobb, speaking for the court, says (page 340 of 122 Ga., page 143 of 50 S. E.): "In misdemeanor and civil cases the......
  • Nobles v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 13 Diciembre 1906
    ...question in the negative. In Sullivan v. Padrosa, 122 Ga. 338, 50 S.E. 143, Mr. Justice Cobb, speaking for the court, says (page 340 of 122 Ga., page 143 of 50 S.E. ): misdemeanor and civil cases there is no statutory provision regulating the method to be adopted by the court in determining......
  • Sullivan v. Padrosa
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 7 Marzo 1905
  • Moss v. State, (No. 6356.)
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 13 Junio 1928
    ...the circumstances, whether or not the evidence was admissible, the ruling of the court was not cause for reversal. Sullivan v. Padrosa, 122 Ga. 338, 341 (2), 50 S. E. 142. 5. The adverse rulings to the plaintiff in error in divisions 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the decision in the companion case o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT