Walker v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 1907 |
| Citation | 99 S.W. 366 |
| Parties | WALKER v. STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
R. L. Leech and G. Egerton, for plaintiff in error. Asst. Atty. Gen. Faw, for the State.
Plaintiff in error was indicted for the murder of one Collier, and on a trial in the circuit court of Dickson county was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and his punishment fixed at five years' confinement in the penitentiary. On this appeal from the judgment pronounced on this verdict, we deem it unnecessary to state the evidence on which the conviction rests, or to notice it, further than to say we are satisfied, after a careful examination of the record, that the finding of the jury is sustained by the weight of the testimony submitted to them.
It was urged in the court below on the motion for a new trial, and the insistence is renewed here, that the verdict was vitiated by reason of the fact that one of the jurors, while a citizen of Dickson county and otherwise qualified, lived outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court and within that of a special court created by chapter 237, p. 533, of the Session Acts of 1899, for a limited portion of that county.
This objection was one propter defectum, and came too late. Such an objection must be made in limine. It is immaterial that the particular disqualification is unknown to the party complaining and his counsel when the juror is accepted. The acceptance, when once made, is conclusive. This is an ancient rule of the common law, adopted by this court at an early day, and uniformly applied. Among the cases recognizing it are McClure v. State, 1 Yerg. 206; Gillespie v. State, 8 Yerg. 507, 29 Am. Dec. 137; Ward v. State, 1 Humph. 255; Hamilton v. State, 101 Tenn. 417, 47 S. W. 695; Goad v. State, 106 Tenn. 175, 61 S. W. 79.
The judgment of the circuit court is therefore affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monday v. State
...S. W. 695; Givens v. State, 103 Tenn. (19 Pick.) 648, 55 S. W. 1107; Goad v. State, 106 Tenn. (22 Pick.) 175, 61 S. W. 79; Walker v. State, 118 Tenn. 375, 99 S. W. 366. It is true that numerous cases hold that, where some particular disqualification of a juror was unknown to the defendant a......
-
Durham v. State
...shall be made before verdict. This is the general rule and has been declared in numerous of our cases, among these being Walker v. State, 118 Tenn. 375, 99 S.W. 366; Monday v. State, 160 Tenn. 258, 23 S.W.2d 656; Hamilton v. State, 101 Tenn. 417, 47 S.W. 695; Cartwright v. State, 80 Tenn. 6......
-
Hardesty v. State
...shall be made before verdict. This is the general rule and has been declared in numerous of our cases, among these being Walker v. State, 118 Tenn. 375, 99 S.W. 366; Monday v. State, 160 Tenn. 258, 23 S.W.2d 656; Hamilton v. State, 101 Tenn. 417, 47 S.W. 695; Cartwright v. State, 80 Tenn. 6......
-
Green v. State
...v. State, 12 Lea, 628; Hamilton v. State, 101 Tenn. 419, 47 S. W. 695; Tommason v. State, 112 Tenn. 600, 79 S. W. 802; Walker v. State, 118 Tenn. 375, 99 S. W. 366. In Tommason v. State, supra, a number of cases on this subject are reviewed. In that case it developed that one of the jurors ......