People v. Enwright

TEMPLE, J.

The defendant was tried for murder, and convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree. . He appeals from the judgment and from-an order refusing a new trial.

The first point urged arises from a challenge to the panel of trial jurors. Some objection might be urged against the sufficiency of the challenge, because it did not include a statement, of the facts constituting the ground of the challenge, as required by section 1060 of the Penal Code. The attorney-general urges no such objection, however, and there is a statement of the-facts in the record, which is defective only in that it does not expressly appear to have been a part of the challenge and stated as the ground of it. The challenge was on the ground of a material departure from the mode provided for the drawing and return of the jury, and it was directed against the additional panel summoned by George Hughes, as deputy coroner. The facts stated are: “The regular panel being exhausted, a special

venire

was ordered, and placed in the hands of the. coroner, who appointed one George G. Hughes a deputy to go to Antelope township to summon jurors, giving said deputy a list of names to be summoned; said deputy summoned all the persons named in said list who could be found.” The district attorney excepted to the challenge, and the exception was sus

[529]

tained. At least, such is the effect of what was done. The court said, “ There is no necessity of ruling upon the challenge; the ■ defendant will have the full benefit of his challenge if there is anything in it,” and proceeded to impanel the jury from the-list so returned.

That the challenge was authorized for this cause, by section-1059 of the Penal Code, I have no doubt. The section differs much from the provision in regard to the challenge of a grand jury, which was the matter under consideration in

People

v.

Southwell,