Case Name: Sam v. The State
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 1872
Citations: 1 Mor. St. Cas. 893
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sam v. The State,
Judges: 
Reporter: Mississippi State Cases; being criminal cases decided in the High court of errors and appeals
Volume: 1
Pages: 893–903

Head Matter:
Sam v. The State,
31 Miss. Rep., 480.
Homicide.
Under the constitution of 1833, and the laws in force in 1855, the governor of this state had power to fill vacancies in the office of circuit judge by temporary appointment, till the election and qualification of a judge should occur; and this, although the unexpired term exceeded one year, and ho special election had been ordered. Per Handy, J.
After verdict It appeared that one of the jury had prejudged the case, although he had stated on his voir dire that he had formed or expressed no opinion. Held that the accused was entitled (under the rule laid over, in Nelson’s ease, 13 S. & M., 500, and Cotton’s case, 31 Miss., 504) to a new trial. Handy, J., dissented.
The credibility of witnesses swearing to a juror’s prejudgement of the issue was to be determined entirely by the court to whom the application for a new trial was addressed. The court was to consider the characters and positions of the juror and witnesses respectively, and the manner and circumstances of the juror’s statements on his voir dire, and from these evidences to determine; and a determination thus made should stand. Per Handy, J., dissenting.
In error from the circuit court of Warren County. Yeegeb, J.
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. I. 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 John I. 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 day of June, 1855, leaving an unexpired term of more than one year; that the governor immediately had notice thereof; that on the 3d day of July, A. n. 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. d. 1855, after the Hon. J. S. Yerger had been elected judge of said district.
%> this plea the state, by the district attorney, filed the following replication: “ And the said State of Mississippi, by Itichards 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 anything 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 State of Mississippi, (in which said district, said county of Issaquena is included,) by the death of the Hon. J. I. Guión, the late judge thereof, on the 10th day of June, A. d. 1855, and that at the time of the death of the said John I. Guión, there was unexpired, more than one year of the term of office for which said Guión was elected, as alleged in said defendant’s plea. And the said State of Mississippi further admits that the governor thereof, on the 3d day of July, a. d. 1855, and after the death of the 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 as 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, in- eluding the circuit court of the county of Issaquena aforesaid, from the time of his being commissioned and qualified as aforesaid, until his successor should be duly éleeted and qualified according to law; and that the said John M. Moore, acting under the appointment so made as aforesaid, did, as judge Of mid third judicial district of the State of Mississippi, on the second Monday of November, a. j>. 1855, being the 12th day of said month, and the time appointed by law for holding said court, and before his successor was commissioned and qualified according to law, hold 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 pleajsand at which term of said court so held by said John M. Moore, as aforesaid, the said defendant was indicted as in his plea is alleged, all which the said State of Mississippi is ready to verify. Wherefore,” etc.
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; 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. R. 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 the 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 sever ally 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.
II. 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. Cr. Law, 1022; Childress v. Ford, 10 S. & M., 25; The People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. K. 128; Sam v. The State, 13 S. & M., 189 ; Nelms v. The State, ib., 500 ; Cody v. The State, 3 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; ib., art. 5, § 13; Hutch. Code, 164.
I). G. Glenn, attorney general.
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 JDenio, 281; 1 Wharton State Tr. 606; 7 Cowan, 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 Teates, 378.
The court should have received the affidavit of the juror. 3 Greenl., 204; 1 Wharton State Tr., 606.

Opinion:
Fishee, J.:
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 case 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.