Opinion ID: 1842574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Administration of the Special Oath in Capital Cases

Text: The trial judge was certain the prospective jurors, on the morning of trial but prior to the selection of the twelve (12) jurors impaneled to try Wilburn's particular case, were given the oath required by Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-71 (1972). That statute reads, in its entirety, as follows: § 13-5-71. Oath of petit jurors. Petit jurors shall be sworn in the following form: You, and each of you, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you will well and truly try all issues and execute all writs of inquiry that may be submitted to you, or left to your decision by the court, during the present term, and true verdicts give according to the evidence. So help you God. The oath shall authorize the jury to try all issues and execute all writs of inquiry which may be submitted to it during that term of the court. Talesmen, if any be summoned or retained, shall in like manner be sworn to try all issues and execute all writs of inquiry which may be submitted to them during the day for which they are summoned or the time for which they are retained. [emphasis supplied] The trial judge, on the other hand, was uncertain as to whether or not the jury selected to try Wilburn's case had been administered the special oath required in capital cases by Miss. Code Ann. § 13-5-73 (1972) which provides, in its entirety, that: § 13-5-73. Oath of jurors and bailiffs in capital cases. The jurors in a capital case shall be sworn to well and truly try the issue between the state and the prisoner, and a true verdict give according to the evidence and the law. Bailiffs may be specially sworn by the court, or under its direction, to attend on such jury and perform such duties as the court may prescribe for them. [emphasis supplied] In short, it is certain the jurors who tried Wilburn's case had been sworn to well and truly try all issues ... and [a] true verdict give according to the evidence. It is uncertain they had been sworn to well and truly try the issue between the state and the prisoner, and a true verdict give according to the evidence and the law. The Court holds the failure, if any, to give the special oath was not error because the two oaths are substantially equivalent, if not substantially the same, since all issues inherently includes the issue [joined] between the state and the prisoner. To suggest otherwise is to exalt form over substance. Cf. Simmons v. State, 241 Miss. 481, 130 So.2d 860, 864 (1961). The purpose of the judicial oath is to impart to the oath-taker the idea he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and truthfully and to awaken and stimulate his conscience and impress his mind with his duty and responsibility to do so. Cf. Rule 603, Miss.R.Evid. (1986) which deals with the oath or affirmation of witnesses. This Court finds no reversible error for the possible omission of the administration of two separate oaths under the facts of this case. By virtue of Rule 5.15, Miss.Unif.Crim. R.Cir.Ct.Prac. (1979), a defendant is entitled to a mistrial upon his own motion if there occurs during the trial an error or legal defect in the proceeding ... resulting in substantial and irreparable prejudice to the defendant's case. [emphasis supplied] This Court does not find that to be the case here.