Case ID: ny_101/html/0690-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daotobth, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter Louis Otto, Appellant.
    (Argued March 6, 1886;
    decided March 23, 1886.)
    Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree.
    The following is an extract from the opinion :
    “We are all agreed that no point is stated on which this appeal can prevail. First. As to the juror, Alger. Upon his ■examination as t'a the competency, it appeared that at the time of the murder he read some notice of the circumstances in one newspaper, and more recently in another, but he had no < formed impression about it,’ or ‘ firm opinion.’ Such opinion or. impression as he had he could lay aside, and ‘ sit as a juror in this case and render an impartial verdict according to the evidence.’ The prisoner challenged for cause. Assuming that the challenge was sufficient in form (§ 380, Code of Crim. Pro.), it was for the trial court to determine whether the juror entertained such opinion or impression as would influence his verdict. (§ 376, subd. 2.) It was apparent that he had no prejudice against the prisoner, and his mind was free to receive the evidence and decide upon it fairly and impartially ; he was, therefore, qualified to sit.”
    After a consideration of the testimony given on the trial, the (Court reached the conclusion that “ there was abundant evidence of premeditation and deliberation,” and that the verdict properly rendered.
    
      H. J. Swift for appellant.
    
      George T. Quinby for respondent.
   Daotobth, J.,

reads for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.