Young v. State

• Citation: 90 Md. 579,45 A. 531
• Parties: YOUNG et al. v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 11 January 1900
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

45 A. 531
90 Md. 579

YOUNG et al.
v.
STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 11, 1900.

45 A. 531

Appeal from circuit court, Harford county; James D. Watters, Judge.

Joseph Young and Joseph Bush, alias Barrett, were convicted of murder, and they appeal. Affirmed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C. J., and FOWLER, PAGE, PEARCE, and SCHMUCKER, JJ.

Harold Scarboro and Gilbert S. Hawkins, for appellants.

Atty. Gen. Gaitner and Walter W. Preston, for the State.

PAGE, J. The appellants were indicted for murder in the circuit court of Harford county. At the trial the several jurors, having been sworn on their voir dire, declared they had not formed or expressed any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoners. After the whole panel had been sworn, and the state had produced a part of its evidence, the counsel for the defense suggested to the court that it had just come to their knowledge that the eleventh juror on the panel, J. Pearl Wilson, a talesman summoned by the sheriff in this case (who had also summoned the coroner's jury of inquest) had served as foreman of that jury, and had "rendered a verdict over his hand and seal as foreman as aforesaid." The finding of the coroner's jury thus referred to was that the deceased "came to his death from the effects of a pistol-shot wound, * * * and we believe from the evidence that Joseph Young and Joseph Bush were implicated in the shooting." It appears that the coroner swore 19 witnesses, and their testimony is fully set out in the record. The counsel for the prisoners, therefore, claiming that the juror Wilson, having heard such evidence and rendered such a verdict, must necessarily be biased and disqualified, challenged the array, and moved that the court discharge the panel. The court overruled the challenge and the motion to discharge the panel, and permitted the trial to proceed, whereupon the defendants excepted. It must be observed that the challenge is to the array, and to discharge the panel. Such a challenge may be raised only when there is some objection affecting the constitution of the whole panel. 3 Bl. Comm. 359; 1 Bish. Or. Proc. § 744; 12 Enc. PI. & Prac. p. 418, and authorities there cited. The proper method of objecting to the qualifications of the juror in this case was by a challenge to the polls for cause. Such a challenge may be made properly when there is some disqualification attaching to a particular juror, and not to the constitution of the whole panel. 1 Bish. Cr. Proc, supra...