Tayloe v. Com.
| Decision Date | 13 May 1960 |
| Parties | Paul TAYLOE and Jimmie White, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
S. M. Ward, Scott, E. Duff, Hazard, for appellants.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., Paul E. Hayes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
STANLEY, Commissioner.
We sustain the motion for an appeal from a judgment of conviction of Paul Tayloe and Jimmie White of the offense of 'holding and flourishing' a deadly weapon, described as a pistol, and pointing the same at a 'picket line' composed of five named persons and others. KRS 435.200. A fine of $50 was imposed upon each defendant. While the evidence was to the effect that different and distinct offense were committed by the respective defendants, their joint indictment and trial were not questioned.
The acts charged occurred during a strike of miners in Perry County and elsewhere in Eastern Kentucky. The evidence reflects the extreme violence which was, as well, of such notoriety as to come within the scope of common knowledge. A picket line was on duty at a railroad switch for the purpose of preventing cars being placed for the loading of coal at a mine operated by a company of which Tayloe was general manager. White had been, or was then, a guard or watchman. The weak proof of guilt was refuted by impressive evidence of innocence. But we do not find it necessary to pass on the point that the verdicts were flagrantly against the evidence.
The appellants maintain that the trial court committed prejudicial error in overruling their motion upon the ground of implied bias that no person who was a member of the United Mine Workers of America, a labor organization involved in the strike, or one whose husband or close relative was a member, should be permitted to serve on the jury, and in not excusing upon individual challenges for cause veniremen who revealed on voir dire their close connection with the labor union and its members. The defendants exercised the three peremptory challenges allowed in misdemeanor cases by the Criminal Code of Practice, § 203. As a consequence of the court's ruling, the jury contained two jurors whose husbands were on a strike picket line, another whose son-in-law was on duty at the place where the alleged acts occurred, and two or three jurors who were members or whose husbands were members of the United Mine Workers.
The Criminal Code of Practice provides for challenges for cause of persons called for jury service (a) for actual bias, which is defined as being 'the existence of such a state of mind on the part of the juror, in regard to the case, or to either party, as satisfies the court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, that he can not try the case impartially and without prejudice to the substantial rights of the parties challenging,' § 209; and (b) for implied bias, which is to be presumed from seven enumerated conditions, § 210. In their several voir dire examinations the jurors had disclaimed any prejudice or bias and stated they could give the defendants a fair trial. Nevertheless, the conditions were such that their connections would probably subconsciously affect their decisions of the case adversely to the defendants. It is always of vital importance to the defendant in a criminal prosecution that doubt of unfairness be resolved in his favor.
None of the veniremen came within the enumeration of Section 210 of the Criminal Code of Practice. But the statutory provisions do not mean that all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. Com., 2003-SC-0489-MR.
...been struck for cause actually served on the jury after the defendant exhausted their peremptory strikes. See, e.g., Tayloe v. Commonwealth, 335 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Ky.1960); Brumfield v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Ky. 1964); Marsch v. Commonwealth, 743 S.W.2d 830, 831 These cases fall......
-
Morgan v. Commonwealth, No. 2003-SC-0489-MR (Ky. 5/18/2006), 2003-SC-0489-MR.
...been struck for cause actually served on the jury after the defendant exhausted their peremptory strikes. See, e.g., Tavloe v. Commonwealth, 335 S.W.2d 556, 557 (Ky. 1960); Brumfield v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.2d 499, 500 (Ky. 1964); Marsch v. Commonwealth, 743 S.W2d 830, 831 (Ky. These cases......
-
Bowling v. Com.
...actual or implied or reasonably inferred. This principle of justice is as old as the history of the jury system. Tayloe v. Commonwealth, Ky., 335 S.W.2d 556, 558 (1960). Moreover, it has been recognized by this Court A trial court's decision whether a juror possessed 'this mental attitude o......
-
Foley v. Parker
...1958)] "[i]t is the probability of bias or prejudice that is determinative in ruling on a challenge for cause;" and in Tayloe v. Commonwealth, [335 S.W.2d 556 (Ky. 1960)] "the conditions were such that their connections would probably subconsciously affect their decision of the case adverse......