People v. Martin

PREWETT, P. J.,

pro

tem.

The appellant was indicted by the grand jury of the county of Sacramento, for the

[72]

crime of ‘‘corruptly attempting to influence a juror, a felony.” One Fuski was being tried on an indictment, and after a juror, Manuel J. Lamb, was duly impaneled and sworn, it is charged that the appellant corruptly and feloniously attempted to influence the aforesaid juror by then and there requesting him to hang the jury. The appellant, on arraignment, interposed a demurrer to the indictment upon the ground that the act charged is not stated with such degree of certainty as to state a public offense nor to enable the court to pronounce a judgment upon conviction. The appellant claims that the indictment does not charge what words were used by the appellant to the juror. Subdivision 1 of section 95 of the Penal Code provides that any person who corruptly and feloniously attempts to influence a juror in respect to his verdict by means of any oral communication, is guilty, etc.

[1]

The indictment, when it charges that the appellant corruptly and feloniously requested the juror to hang the jury, charges, without other or further language, the crime denounced by the statute. The indictment is sufficient.

The appellant interposed his plea of not guilty and after trial before a jury was duly convicted and sentenced. It is insisted that the evidence is insufficient to justify a conviction. But the juror in question testified clearly and distinctly that the appellant requested him to hang the jury. This, beyond question, was clearly sufficient to justify a verdict of guilty. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how this point could be seriously urged.

[2]

The chief alleged error, however, relied upon by the appellant, consists in the admission of evidence that the appellant approached another juror in the same case and requested him, also, to hang the jury. This evidence was admitted by the trial court, upon the ground that it showed a general scheme or effort on the part of the appellant to corrupt the verdict in the Fuski ease. For this purpose it was highly relevant and pertinent and it was properly admitted. It is true that, in general, a defendant on trial may rest secure in the knowledge that he is called upon to prepare to meet but one charge at a time, and that evidence of other crimes, whether similar or dissimilar, is not admissible. _ This is a very insistent rule of the law, but it has several well-defined exceptions.