The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1880-12-09
WILLIS THOMPSON,
V. NO. $40.
tn. Gr.-rr-

HE STATE.
Error to the Circuit Court of RankiE
County, Hon. A. G.. Mayors, Judge
Plaintiff in error was convicted of grand
larceny. The opinion of the court relates
only to the organization OF the jury, and
being of great practical Importance, is giver
in full.
CAMPBELL, J.
When a jury for the trial of this case wa:
rendered to the State the district attorney
peremptorily challenged two of the twelve
Jurors, and, without calling others to take
their places, the remaining ten were pre-
sented to the prisoner who demanded full
panel before he would pass upon them
The court refused this demand, and, with
out filing the panel, required the prisoner
to say whether he would accept the ten or
not. He then peremptorily challenged four
of the ten, and the panel was completed
afterwards.
The prisoner excepted to this action ofthe
court. and assigns it for error.
We think the right of the prisoner was
disregarded in the matter mentioned. The
statute, Code of 1871, 276l, allowed the
prisoner four peremptory challenges. The
object was to enable him to set aside four
from panel of twelve men without assign
ing any cause To give him the full benefit
OF the statutory TlHut, ne SuOuAd nave OOCh
presented with a full panel, I'm order the
better to enable him to take his challenges.
The propriety of this is manifest. The ex-
ercise Of the right to challenge might be ma
teriallv influenced by view of full panel.
When a complete panel is presented to the
prisoner, he may exercise his right to chal-
lenge unembarrassed by uncertainty as to
who may be called to fill vacancy other
than that created by his challenge. His
l. i TFrrNy w
four have been set aside by HIM without
cause assigned, if he so elects. de mas
right to view twelve men presented to him
as Jury before he can be called on TO say
which he will reject, or whether he Will re-
ject any.
Hawkins lays it down that, "before any
juryman is brought to the book, the prisoner,
by leave of the court, may have the whole
panel once called over in his hearing, that
he NAV take notice who do and who do not
appear in order the better to enable him to
take his challenges 2 Hawk. p. G. Oh. 10,
f. Our statute entities the accused In
capital cases to a list of the special venire
summoned on his trial, in order the better
TO enable him to take his challenges. In
misdemeanors the accused has the right TO
select eight from twelve jurors offered, by
rejecting four of them at his pleasure.
When the district attorney challenged
two of the jury, their places should have
beeen supplied by two others, and when
they were accepted, the jury, complete,
should have been presented to the prisoner,
and when he had passed upon it, and jury
was completed, the district attorney should
have been allowed to challenge for cause
(he having exhausted his peremptory
challenges) any of the jurors not on the
jury when he declared himself content with
it.
The case of Tatsan " Preston, 50 Miss
654, is not inconsistent with the foregoing
view. In it the question was whether the
defendant, after challenging peremptorliy
one of twelve jurors, who had been accepted
by the plaintiffs and presented to him
could, after the place of the challenges
juror was filled by one called 70 u
challenge one of the eleven not challenged
BY him in the first instance: and we helt
IT to be correct practice to require eacl
party, when full panel is presented 70 him
20 challenge all whom he desires 70 chal
ienge, and not to permit experimenting p
challenging one, and waiting TO see who
called to his place and then TO challengI
otnerH who were id the box at first.
IL capital eases the list Of the speclA
xenike summoned being ia Tie hends 81 81
lls9neE, ohyiate1 81 objection g the enl