Case Name: Sam, (a Slave,) v. The State of Mississippi
Court: High Court of Errors and Appeals of Mississippi
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1856-04
Citations: 31 Miss. 480
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sam, (a Slave,) v. The State of Mississippi.
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 480–490

Head Matter:
Sam, (a Slave,) v. The State of Mississippi.
1. New triad : prejudiced juror. — If after verdict it appear that a juror, who had stated on his voir dire that he had not formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, had prejudged the case, and had expressed an opinion unfavorable to the prisoner, and that the prisoner was ignorant of the fact at the trial, a new trial should be granted.
2. Same. — S. was found guilty of murder by the jury; after verdict, he proved in support of his motion for a new trial, by the affidavit of two witnesses, that one of the jurors stated the day before the trial, “ that if the evidence was the same as it was on a former trial which he had heard, the prisoner was guilty of murder, and should be hung.” The prisoner and his counsel made oath that they knew nothing of this until after trial; and it further appeared, that this juror, on his voir dire, stated that he had not formei or expressed an opinion in reference to the case; the Circuit Court overruled the motion. M'eld: It not appearing from the record that the affidavits were disbelieved by the court, a new trial should have been granted. Handy, J., dissented.
3. Same : presumption in favor of judgment. — -The Circuit Court has the right to judge of the credibility of a witness introduced in support of a motion for a new trial, made upon the ground that one of the jurors had, previously to the trial, expressed an opinion unfavorable to the jirisoner; and if the court overrule the motion, and the record does not show upon what ground the court acted, it will be presumed that the court disbelieved their testimony; as every presumption must be indulged in favor of the judgment of the court below which is not removed by the record. Per Handy, J., dissenting.
4. Circuit judge : power of the governor to appoint. — The governor has the power, under the constitution and laws of this State, whenever a vacancy occurs in the office of circuit judge, and the nnexpired term exceeds one year, to make a temporary appointment, to continue until the election and qualification of a successor; and he may make such appointment without first having ordered a special election to fill the vacancy. Per Handy, J.
In error from the Circuit Court of Warren county. Hon. J. S. Yerger, judge.
The prisoner was indicted for murder in the Circuit Court of Issaquena county, at the November term, A. D. 1855, thereof; which court was holden before the Hon. John M. Moore, who had received a temporary appointment from the governor, to supply the vacancy occurring from the death of the Hon. J. J. Guión. At a subsequent term of the court, holden by the Hon. J. S. Yerger, the prisoner pleaded in abatement to the indictment, that the said term of the court at which he was indicted, was illegal in this, that Jno. J. Guión was elected judge of the district in which that county was situated, in November, A. D. 1853, for the term of four years; that said Guión died on the 10th June, 1855, leaving an unexpired, term of more than one year; that the governor immediately hadi notice thereof; that on the 3d day of July, a. d. 1855, he appointed; said John M. Moore judge of said district; that the governor did not issue a writ for an election of a successor to said Guión, as required by law-; and that said term of the court at which he was indicted, was holden on the 12th day of November, A. x>. 1855, after the Hon. J. S. Yerger had been elected j,jidge-of, said district».
To this plea the State, by the district attorney, filed the following replication: — “ And the said State of Mississippi, by Richards Barnett, acting as District Attorney, for the Third Judicial District of the State of Mississippi comes, and for replication, to said plea of the said defendant Sam, by him' above pleaded says, that the said State of Mississippi, for any thing in the said plea alleged, ought not to be precluded from having or maintaining her aforesaid indictment against the said defendant Sam, or from further prosecuting the same; - because the said State of Mississippi says, that true it is, that a vacancy did occur in the office of Circuit Judge of the Third Judicial District of the said State of Mississippi, (in which said district, said county of Issaquena is included) by the death of the Hon. John J. Guión, the late judge thereof, on, the 10th day of June, a» d. 1855, and that at the time of the death of said John J.. Guión, there was-unexpired, more than one year of the term of office for which said G.uion, was elected, as alleged in said defendant’s plea. And the said State of Missis? sippi further admits, that the governor thereof, on the Sd day of July, A. D. 1855, and after the death of said Guión, did, as alleged in said plea, have notice of said death, and to fill the vacancy occasioned thereby, did afterwards, to wit: on the day and year last aforesaid, duly appoint and commission John M. Moore, Esq., as judge of the Third Judicial District aforesaid; and that the said Moore accepted said appointment, and was duly qualified as such judge, and was duly authorized and empowered to hold the Circuit Courts in and for the several counties of the said Third Judicial District of the said State, including the Circuit Court for the county of Issaquena aforesaid, from the time of his being commissioned and qualified as aforesaid, until his successor should be duly elected and qualified according to law; and that the said John M. Moore, acting under the appointment so made as aforesaid, did, as judge of said Third Judicial District of the State of Mississippi, ■on the second Monday of November, A. d.. 1855, being the 12th day of the said month, and the time appointed by law for holding said court, and before his successor was commissioned and qualified according to law, held the said term of the Circuit Court of Issaquena county, as he had authority and right to do, and not contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, as is alleged in said plea, and at which said term of said court, so held by said John M. Moore as aforesaid, the said defendant was indicted as in his said plea is alleged, all which the said State of Mississippi is ready to verify. Wherefore, ” &c.
The defendant moved the court to strike out the replication, which the court refused to do. He then filed his general demurrer ,to the replication, which being overruled, he pleaded not guilty.
Upon the application of the prisoner, the venue was changed to Warren county 5 and at the June term, 1856, of the Circuit Court »of that county, he was tried and convicted of murder. He then moved the .court for a new trial, “because one of the jurors — one E. It. Wells — who was empanelled to try him at the present term of the court, (and by which said jury he was convicted,) had said before he was sworn and empanelled in said cause as a juror, in vthe presence of witnesses, that said defendant was guilty as charged, ¡and.ought to be hung.”
On the trial of this motion, he read to the court the affidavits of Charles A. Harris and Charlotte M. Hayes, in which they severally deposed, that on the day previous to the trial of the cause, the said E. R. Wells, one of the jurors who was empanelled'to try the prisoner, stated in their hearing, and in the hearing of others, “ That if the evidence in the cause should be the same as that given on a previous trial, which he had heard, that the defendant was guilty of murder, and ought to be hung.” The prisoner and his counsel each made their affidavits, in which they severally deposed that they knew nothing of the said declarations of the said Wells, until after the trial of the cause. It was further shown that the juror, Wells, was examined on his voir dire before he was accepted and empanelled as a juror, and that he then denied that he had formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. The district attorney offered, as rebutting evidence, the affidavit of said Wells, in which he deposed that he had not made the statement attributed to him by the witnesses Harris and Hayes; but this affidavit, upon objection by the prisoner, the court ruled as incompetent evidence, and refused to consider it. No other evidence was offered by either party, and the court overruled the motion.
The prisoner sued out this writ of error.
N. A. H. Lawson, for the prisoner, made the following points :
1. A new trial should have been granted, because the prisoner was not tried by an impartial jury. The proof shows clearly that the juror, Wells, had previously expressed an opinion, formed from hearing the evidence, that the prisoner was guilty. See Whart. Am. Or. Law, 1022; Childress v. Lord, 10 S. & M. 25; The People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. R. 128; Sam v. The State, 13 S. & M. 189; Nelms v. The State, lb. 500; Cody v. The State, 8 How. (Miss.) 27.
2. The court in which the prisoner was indicted was illegally constituted. Under the circumstances, the appointment of John M. Moore, Esq., as judge, was void. See Constitution of Mississippi, art, 4, § 13; lb. art. 5, § 13; Hutch. Code, 164.
L. C. Grlenn, attorney-general, for the State.
. It is urged that Sam had not a fair trial, because Wells, a juror, declared his opinion before trial, that if the evidence turned out as on a former trial, Sam ought to be hung. This fact is proved by several witnesses, and Sam swears he was ignorant of it until after his trial was.over. The juror was offered by the State to prove the reverse, but the court refused to hear his affidavit.
It is true, that when it appears, after the trial, the juror had prejudged the case, it is good ground for a new trial. See 2 Salk. 645; 1 Denio, 281; 1 Wharton, State Tr. 606 ; 7 Cowen, 108; 1 Leigh, 598; 9 Dana, 203; 19 Ohio, 198.
A qualified opinion, however — such as the one in question— dependent on a particular state of facts, will be no ground for a new trial. 2 Yirg. Cases, 510, 516; 5 Rand. 655; 7 Watts & Serg. 421; 1 Yeates, 378.
The court should have received the affidavit of the juror. 3 Greenleaf, 204; 1 Wharton, State Tr. 606.

Opinion:
Fisher, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
Upon the point, as to the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial in this case, we are of opinion that the court erred. The ease we conceive falls clearly within the rule laid down by this court in the case of Nelson v. The State, 13 S. & M. 500; and of Cotton v. The State. The affidavits, supposing them to have received full credit by the court, and nothing appears to the contrary, must be taken and treated as placing the juror in the same attitude in which he would have stood, if he had stated the facts deposed to, himself in open court, when brought forward as a juror, and examined, touching his fitness to sit on the trial of the prisoner.
Judgment reversed, and new trial granted.