Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. HARVEY M. MUNSELL v. THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1885-05
Citations: 43 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 277
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. HARVEY M. MUNSELL v. THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER.
Judges: Beady, J., concurred in the result.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 43
Pages: 277–287

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. HARVEY M. MUNSELL v. THE COURT OF OYER AND TERMINER.
Misconduct of a juror — when the court cannot punish it as a criminal contempt — Code of Criminal Procedure, secs, ill, 415 — Penal Code. sec. 73— Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 8, sub. 3 — meaning of word “mandate.”
Upon the trial of one Short for a criminal assault, the jury rendered a verdict of acquittal, which verdict was inconsistent with the evidence as recapitulated in the charge of the judge presiding at the trial. During the trial one of the jurors, without the permission or suggestion of the court, went, during a recess, to the premises where the assault was alleged to have been committed, for the purpose of examining tjiem and so acquiring information not furnished by the evidence submitted to the jury. The judge had not, upon the adjournment of the court, admonished the jury, as required by section 415 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that it was their duty not to converse among themselves on any subject connected with the trial, or to form or express any opinion thereon, until the case was finally submitted to them.
Eeld, that although the juror was guilty of a misdemeanor under section 73 of the Penal Code, yet he was not guilty of a criminal contempt for which he could be summarily punished by the court.
That the word “mandate,” as used in subdivision 3 of section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, authorizing the court to punish for a criminal contempt a person guilty of a willful disobedience to “ its lawful mandate,” means only a written direction or order. (Per Daniels, J.)
That it includes a verbal direction or order. (Per Davis, P. J.)
Writ of Certiorari to review proceedings of the court by which the relator was directed to be imprisoned for the period of thirty-days, and to pay a fine of $250, for a contempt of court.
Ira Shafer and John Vincent, for the relator.
Ambrose R. Purdy, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Daniels, J. :
The relator was a member of a jury drawn for the trial of an indictment against Richard Short' for a criminal assault. The indictment was tried in the Court of Oyer and Terminer during the-present month, and the trial resulted in the acquittal of the defendant. As the evidence has been recapitulated in the opinion of the learned judge presiding at the trial, the verdict appears to have-been inconsistent with the facts established by it, and that was believed to have been in part brought about by the misconduct of the relator.
During the progress of the trial certain diagrams were used te exhibit the premises where the assault had been committed, and the relator without any liberty or suggestion on the part of the court, repaired to the premises for the purpose of observing them and acquiring information in that manner not supplied by the evidence submitted to the jury. His conduct in this respect was highly reprehensible and deserving of the censure and condemnation-pronounced in the opinion of the justice presiding over the court of Oyef and Terminer. It exhibited the mind of the juror not to-have been in that impartial condition which was necessary to enable him, in compliance with the oath that had been administered to him, to decide the case according to the evidence, and that his disposition was to secure other and additional information apparently for the purpose of officiously aiding him in the disposition of the case. This was a gross violation of duty upon his part and of the spirit and intent of the oath which he had taken, rendering the verdict of the jury irregular and possibly authorizing the court to set it aside. But this misconduct, reprehensible as it was, did not subject him to punishment for a criminal contempt, and that was the punishment imposed, unless some warrant shall be found in the statutes of the State, subjecting him for it to such punishment. Whether statutory authority j including the case as it was presented by the-proofs before the court, can be found which will authorize the imposition of this punishment, was not considered in the discussion of the case by the learned judge presiding at the trial.
It was rather assumed, as it plausibly might be, that the authority existed because of the misconduct of the juror and the necessity for its correction by summary punishment. It was deemed proper, therefore, to apply it to his case, not only adequately to punish his-own misconduct, but to protect the administration of justice from miscarriage by means of similar or other misconduct of jurors in other cases. The punishment pronounced upon the relator was the extreme sentence provided by section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the punishment of a criminal contempt, and the point to be determined' now is whether it was established by the proof produced before the court that this offense had been committed by the juror. It has been urged, that it was so committed, for the reason that he had no right to proceed to view these premises without the liberty of the court, and none to receive any communication- or information relative to the matter pending before him, except according to the regular course of proceeding upon the trial. These restraints upon jurors have been provided by section 411 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 78 of the Penal Code. But it has not been declared in either section that a violation of the restraints so provided for by a juror should constitute a contempt of the court in which he may at the time be serving. The section first referred to prescribes no punishment whatever for violating its implied prohibition, that the juror shall not view the premises without the direction or assent of the court; and for violating the section secondly referred to, it has been declared that the juror shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and that is the only consequence declared to result from his irregular and unlawful conduct in the violation of this section. It has also been provided by section 415 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the jurors shall be admonished at every adjournment not to converse among themselves on any subject connected with the trial, or to form or express-any opinion thereon until the cause is finally submitted. But this section has not declared that jurors who may contravene its provisions shall be liable to be punished in proceedings by way of criminal contempt. The duty imposed by each of these sections is exceedingly important for the preservation of the impartial state of the juror's mind during the progress of a criminal trial, and too much care cannot be taken to ensure the observance of the directions contained in these provisions of the statutes.
But it has been the policy of the legislature of the State for many years to clearly define the cases in which persons may be punished for criminal contempts. In civil eases, where misconduct has been made the subject of punishment by way of contempt, the provisions of the law have not been so explicit, but they have placed the courts at liberty, in cases not expressly provided for, to award such punishment where it has been usually adopted and practiced in a court of record to enforce a civil remedy of a party to an action or special proceeding, and where it may be required to protect the right of a party. (Code Civ. "Proc., § 14, sub. 8.) But this extended right of proceeding has been expressly confined to such misconduct as may defeat, impair, impede or prejudice a right or remedy of a j>arty to a civil action or special proceeding, and it excludes cases of misconduct arising in the course of criminal proceedings which are to be punished as criminal contempts. That misconduct has been otherwise provided for by section S of the Code of Civil Procedure, and by that it has been declared that " a court of record has power to punish for a criminal contempt a person guilty of either of the following acts, and no others."
This language has been made use of to include the class of cases in which misconduct may be punished as a criminal contempt, and to exclude all other classes of misconduct from the range of such punishment, and such is its effect with the exception of cases after-wards added by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
These provisions are contained in sections 243, 350 and 619; but they include no other proceedings or cases than may be made out for the punishment of misconduct of a grand juror, or of a party obtaining an order staying proceedings from one judge, after an application for it has been denied by another, or of a witness for disobeying a subpoena or refusing to be sworn or testify in a criminal ease. Neither of these sections includes the case of the relator, or of misconduct of the nature of that charged against him in the course of these proceeding;. Hut the sole and only authority for proceed ing against and punishing him criminally for viewing the premises without tlie leave of the court, is contained, if it exists at all, in subdivision 3, section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, already mentioned. This section consists of six subdivisions, but the third is the only one having any possible relation to the misconduct of this juror, and that subjects a person to punishment by the court for a criminal contempt " for willful disobedience to its lawful mandate." This word mandate is of quite recent introduction into the' laws of the State, and came into use by the enactment of the Code •of Civil Procedure, and a definition of it has been given by subdivision 2 of section 3343. By this definition it has been declared •that " the word ' mandate ' includes a writ, process or other written direction issued pursuant to law out of a court, or made pursuant to law, by a court, or a judge, or a person acting as a judicial officer, •and commanding a court, board or other body, or an officer or other person named or otherwise designated therein, to do or refrain from doing an act therein specified." By this definition the word includes only such commands or directions as may be made in writing. For the writ or process mentioned in it must necessarily be in writing, and the other directions included are mentioned as written 'directions. And that this subdivision is to be so understood and construed is manifest from the first paragraph of the section containing it. For by that it has been declared that "in construing this act the following rules must be observed, except where a contrary intent is expressly declared in the provisions to be construed, or plainly apparent from the context thereof."
And one of the rules so referred to, is that which has already been mentioned defining the signification of this word " mandate." No contrary intent within this language concerning the meaning has been declared in any portion of section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Neither is the existence of any such intent apparent from that section, or subdivision 3, or any section preceding or following it, and the result accordingly is that the mandate mentioned in subdivision 3 of section 8, will include no more than a writ or process, or some other direction made in writing, and no such direction was given by the court to the jury requiring them to abstain from, or avoid, viewing these premises, and there accordingly could be no willful disobedience to any lawful mandate of the 'court upon this subject by what was done by this juror. There was no such mandate as the subdivision includes, and it is elear accordingly that it could not have been violated by the juror. That the violation of the other sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and of the Penal Code which have been mentioned, could not subject the misconduct of the juror to punishment, under subdivision 3 of section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is equally as clear. Por that subdivision has not been made, or so defined, as-to subject the juror to punishment by proceedings for a criminal contempt, for a failure to comply with or observe the directions contained in these other sections. Por neither of these sections is a writ, process or other written direction within the language employed in subdivision 2 of section 3313 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But they stand entirely independent of this subdivision, prescribing the authority to be exercised, the duty to'be observed and the legal consequences of a failure to comply with their directions, so far as that .was deemed to be necessary by the body enacting the statute's.
But if it should be assumed that a verbal direction not to visit or view the place in which the crime was charged to have been committed, or to avoid receiving information or evidence concerning the case, would bring the misconduct of the juror within subdivision 3 of section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the case-against him would still be unsustained, for there was not only no evidence produced upon the application to punish him, of such a verbal direction having been given by the court to the jury, but beyond that it has ^een stated positively, without any denial of the statement that no direction whatever was given to the jury upon this subject. And without such a direction, either in writing or in words, there certainly could be no mandate for the jurors to disobey. And as there was none, a case of criminal contempt was not made out against this juror under the provisions of the law declaring and defining the power to be exei'cised by the court over the subject of criminal contempts.
It may well be held that the misconduct of this juror not only deserved condemnation, but beyond that an adequate degree of punishment. But only that punishment could be inflicted upon him which the law may have provided for a case of this description. TJpon the subject of punishment for offenses and punishable misconduct, the statutes of the State have endeavored to define the cases in which it may be imposed, and the course of legal proceedings which shall precede its imposition. The cases of criminal contempts form no exception to this rule, and care has been taken to avoid the exercise of arbitrary authority by defining and declaring, in clear language, the misconduct for which a person may be so punished. And it is only in the cases which have been prescribed by the legislature as proper subjects for such punishment that it can be imposed upon an offender. The case made against this juror was not one of the cases so defined and prescribed, and while his misconduct well deserved adequate punishment, as long as it was not within the-provisions of the law declaratory of cases of willful contempt, it could not be made the subject of punishment as it has been under these provisions.
The proceedings taken for the release of the juror by means of the writ of habeas corpus do not require special consideration. They have been practically superseded by the more extended range-of examination permitted under the authority of the writ of certiorari, issued to review the proceedings of the court. The habeas corpus may accordingly be dismissed, and as no case was-made out against the juror subjecting him to punishment for a criminal contempt, the order or judgment pronounced by the court, adjudging him guilty of such a contempt and directing his punishment for it, should be reversed, and as it is in substance conceded that no stronger case can be proved against him on a further hearing before the court, he should be discharged.