Wright v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 04 December 1879 |
| Citation | 73 Va. 941 |
| Parties | WRIGHT v. THE COMMONWEALTH. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
1. On the examination on his voir dire, a juror answered " that he had read newspaper accounts of the offence with which the prisoner was charged, and had heard rumors of the same; that upon what he had read and heard he had made up and expressed an opinion in the case; that the opinion so made up and expressed was still upon his mind; that he did not think he could do the prisoner justice; but in answer to a question from the court, should the evidence before the jury be different from that he had heard, he said his opinion would be changed; that he could come to the trial with an unbiased and an unprejudiced mind, and give the accused a fair and impartial trial" --HELD: He was not a competent juror.
2. If a juror has made up and expressed a decided opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, he is incompetent whether the opinion be founded on conversation with the witnesses or upon mere hearsay or rumor. It is sufficient if the opinion is decided and has been expressed.
3. When the opinion is founded on common rumor, the presumption is that it is merely hypothetical, and it will be so considered in the absence of proof to the contrary.
4. Whether the opinion be hypothetical or decided, whether founded on rumor or upon evidence heard at the trial, the juror must be free from prejudice against the accused. Upon this point nothing should be left to inference, or in doubt.
At the July term, 1879, of the county court of Bedford, Peter Wright was indicted for the murder of Robert Maupin. At the same term of the court he was tried, convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hung.
The prisoner took two bills of exceptions to rulings of the court--the first to the admission of a juror, and the second to the refusal of the court to grant him a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence. Only the first exception was considered by this court; and the case is stated in the opinion of Judge Staples. Upon application by the prisoner to the judge of the circuit court of Bedford for a writ of error and supersedeas, it was refused; but upon application to this court, it was allowed.
Whitehead & Claytor, for the prisoner.
The Attorney-General, for the commonwealth.
The prisoner was convicted in the county court of Bedford of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hanged. When the venire was called, and the jurors sworn to answer questions, the prisoner objected to two of them as incompetent. One of the persons thus objected to--Charles W. Hardy--stated, that he had read newspaper accounts of the offence with which prisoner was charged, and had heard rumors of the same; that upon what he had read and heard he had made up and expressed and opinion in the case; that the opinion so made up and expressed was still upon his mind; that he did not think he could do the prisoner justice; but in answer to a question from the judge, should the evidence before the jury be different from that he had heard, he said his opinion would be changed; that he could come to the trial with an unbiased and an unprejudiced mind, and give the accused a fair and impartial trial.
Upon this statement, the court overruled the objection of the prisoner, and permitted the juror to be sworn; and thereupon the prisoner excepted. The question we are to determine is whether there is error in this ruling. The law bearing upon this subject has been so often and so fully considered in the numerous cases before the general court and before this court, that any further discussion of...
To continue reading
Request your trial