Case Name: TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GERTRUDE, Appellant
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arizona
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 1 Ariz. 74
Docket Number: 
Parties: TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GERTRUDE, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arizona Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 74–79

Head Matter:
TERRITORY OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GERTRUDE, Appellant.
Charge to Jury in Cribtinal Case must be in Writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the papers in the case, and the record in the case must show that such charge was read to the jury, or that the defendant in open court consented that the charge should be given verbally.
Appeal from the second judicial district. The facts are stated in the opinions.
G. S. Oury, for the appellant.
Under the laws of this territory, the qualification of a juror is, among other things, that he be a citizen of the United States. Howell’s Code, 294, sec. 4. In criminal cases involving capital punishment, greater laltitude should be allowed the defendant in the preparation and conduct of his defense than in ordinary cases. Hollingsworth v. Duane, 4 Dall. 353.
Where an alien has acted the part of a juror without the possible knowledge of the defendant, the defendant having exhausted all the means in his power to discover the fact, the verdict is illegal, and no judgment can rightfully be pronounced thereon. Guyskowski v. People, 1 Scam. 476; Borst v. Beecker, 6 Johns. 332; Presbury v. Commonwealth, 9 Dana, 203. As to the general principles touching the validity of the acts of an alien juror, see 2 Graham and Waterman on New Trial, 277.
J. E. HcCaffry, attorney general, for the respondent.
The record does not show that any one of the jurors in this case was in any respect incompetent; nor is incompetency shown outside of the record. It is simply charged from the fact that one of the jurors was not a citizen, although he had the right to become a citizen at any moment, and supposed he was so. No presumption arises that the defendant was in any manner prejudiced, or did not receive a fair trial. Alienage is a ground of challenge to a juror, but is not a ground for a new trial. Rex v. Sutton, 15 Eng. Com. L. 208; 1 Archbold’s Cr. Pr. 516. L juror can not object to serving upon the ground that he is an alien. 1 Brightly’s Bed. Dig. 507, title, Jury, sec. 9. A new trial will not be granted because one of the jurors was an alien. 1 Brightly’s Bed. Dig. 678, title, Practice, sec. 537. That which is ground for challenge to a juror is not always ground for a new trial; for instance, the fact that one of the jurors was an alien or a non-resident. 3 Wharton’s Grim. Law, sec. 3220.

Opinion:
By Court,
Titus, 0. J.:
This is an appeal by William Gertrude from a judgment of death pronounced upon him by the district court of the second judicial district of Arizona, on a trial for murder.
There was no assignment of error, and the case was submitted on briefs without oral argument. On inspection of the transcript, however, it does not appear that the charge of the judge before whom the case was tried was in writing and read to the jury; nor does it appear that the defendant consented in open court, or otherwise, that the charge should be given verbally.
The law of Arizona, sec. 388, Compiled Laws, p. 137, proceedings in criminal cases, is as follows: "The charges of the court to the jury shall be in writing, signed by the judge and filed with the papers in the case, unless the defendant consent in open court for the charges to be given verbally."
This court has decided at its present term, in the eases of the Territory v. Michael Kennedy, and the Territory v. Milton B. Duffield, felonies not capital, that the record must show on appeal in such cases as these that the charge was in writing and read to the jury, or that the defendant consented in open court that the charge should be verbally given.
It is the opinion of this court, in the present case, that if the record must show these things in cases such as those, a fortiori it ought to show the same things in cases such as this, whose penal consequences are so much more severe, and that the record failing to show them in this case, the judgment ought to be reversed.
The judgment of the district court is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.