Court Opinion

ID: 9825521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:17:46.371971+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:56.650881
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The bill of exceptions shows that the defendants made known to the court (when entering upon the trial) that there were ' three defendants to be jointly tried, and insisted and requested the court to allow each defendant to strike two jurors, after the solicitor had first stricken one from the list of jurors. The court overruled this insistence and denied the request, and defendant excepted. The court intimated that the three defendants jointly should strike two jurors, and the state one. No further effort appears to have been made by the defendants to avail themselves of the number of strikes allowed by the statute by offering or attempting to strike more than two jurors for the defendants. The insistence that each of the three defendants to be jointly- tried were entitled to two strikes each, making six strikes for the defendants to one for the state, cannot be sustained. By express terms of the statute when two or more persons are tried jointly, the solicitor shall strike one and each defendant shall have the right to strike off one name and they shall continue thus to strike off names until only twelve remain, and the twelve thus selected shall be the jury charged with the triail of the defendants. Section 8642, Code 1923.
Application overruled.