Case ID: tenn_33/html/0111-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Caruthees, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Isham vs. The State.
    1. Criminal Law. Juror. Exception propter defectum after verdict, when no ohjeolion taken before. The circuit judge is the trier of all questions appertaining to the qualifications of jurors. It will he presumed that Ms action is correct, unless he is put in the wrong hy exceptions upon the record setting forth the facts upon which he decided. So, when in a capital felony the record did' not show that the jurors who tried the prisoner were good and lawful men, or that they were freeholders or householders, but did show that they “ were elected, tried and sworn,” and that no objection was made to either of them until after the verdict, it is no sufficient ground for a reversal of the judgment upon a conviction. Vide McClure vs. fhc State, 1 Yerg., 215, per Catron, J. „ .
    2. Indictment. Verdict of guilty upon two or more counts, where one is bad. When the verdict is general, or upon two or more counts, and either count be good, the conviction will stand, no matter how defective the other count or counts may he.
    8. Attorney General. Where an indictment is preferred by the regular officer, • and the cause prosecuted by an Attorney General pro tempore. It will be presumed that the court would not permit any one to enter upon and din-charge the important functions of attorney general, -without some valid reason and a regular appointment. So when it appeared of record that the indictment was preferred by the regular attorney general, and the case prosecuted in court by an attorney general pro tem, as to whose appointment the record is silent, there is no error. Act of 1851-2, eh. 256, § 5.
    4. Technicalities. In criminal prosecutions. The day has passed when the guilty can be rescued upon mere technicalities, the legislature has wisely willed it, and the courts will favor rather than obstruct a reform so just and salutary in our criminal jurisprudence.
    FROM JFFFERSON.
    The plaintiff in error, a negro slave, was indicted in the circuit court of Jefferson, for an assault and battery upon a free white female with intent to commit a rape. At the August Term, ISIS, of said court, he was tried, ( Hynds, J., presiding,) convicted and sentenced to death. His motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were made, and severally overruled, and he appealed in error to this court. The testimony is not embodied in the record. The indictment which was preferred by the regular Attorney General, W. K. Caswell, contained five counts, upon the second and fourth of which the prisoner was convicted, the fourth being defective. • The order of the court appears in the record, commanding the sheriff to summon a panel of jurors of “ good and lawful men of said county,” out of which panel the jury were selected. It further appears in the record, that the jury were “elected, tried, and sworn,” but it does not recite that they were good and lawful men, or that they were freeholders or householders; nor does it appear that any objection was made at the time. It appears also, that Jacob Peck, Esq., appeared in the trial of the cause as attorney general, pro tempore, the record being silent as to bis appointment or tbe reason for the same.
    Swah, Attorney General, for the State.
    LyoN, Cummings, and SwAN, for the prisoner.
    They cited 1 Meigs’ Dig., § 175, p. 110, 111. 3 Humph., 372. Const., art. 6, § 5. Act 1835, ch. 28, § 2.
   Caruthees, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was a conviction in the circuit court of Jefferson, for an assault and battery with intent to commit a rape upon Mary W. Riggs, a free white female, in the county of Jefferson.

It is assigned for error here: 1. That the record does not show that the jurors who tried the defendant possessed the qualifications required by law. True, it is not expressly stated that they were citizens of the county or freeholders, or householders, or even “ good and lawful men.” Yet it appears that they were “ elected, tried and sworn.” No objection was made by the accused to any of them, so as to bring any question before us on their competency. The circuit Judge is the trier of all questions appertaining to the qualifications of jurors. -It must be presumed that his action was correct unless he is put in the wrong by exceptions upon the record setting forth the facts upon which he decided. In the case of Turner vs. The State, 9 Humph., 119, this precise question came before the court in relation to a grand jury. All that we now do is to extend tbe principle there laid down. There is no reason for a distinction. There is then, nothing in the objection.

2. It is objected that as the conviction was upon the second and fourth counts, and the latter is bad, the verdict should be set aside. This position cannot be sustained. If the verdict is general, or upon two or more counts, and either count be good, the conviction will stand, no matter how defective the other may be. No objection is taken to the second count, but it is admitted to be unexceptionable.

3. The record shows that Jacob Peck appeared in the prosecution of the case as attorney general pro tem, when it does not appear that he was ever appointed to that position, or that any necessity existed by the absence of the attorney general or otherwise, for such an appointment. But the indictment was signed and preferred by the attorney general for the circuit, and only prosecuted by the pro tem. Perhaps no case has ever gone so far as to make the objection here taken available. In the cases of Staggs vs. The State, 3 Humph., 372. Hite vs. The State, 9 Yerg., 198, and others cited, the indictments were not preferred by the regular attorney general. But the act of 1852, forbids a reversal in such cases as these. By that act it is declared that if the record does not show that the person who signs the indictment as attorney general pro tem, was appointed, it is not error. It must be presumed that the court would not permit any one to enter upon and discharge the important functions of this officer, without the existence of some necessity, and a regular appointment.

The objections in this case are all purely technical, and have no reference to the merits. The proof is not even given on which, the conviction was founded. From which fact it must be inferred, that it was entirely conclusive of his guilt. The day has now passed for rescuing the guilty upon mere technicalities. The legislature has wisely willed it, and it is not for the courts to resist the great reform. We would favor rather than obstruct it.

The judgment will be affirmed, and the sentence executed.