People v. Edwards

By the Court, Wallace, J.: The prisoner was convicted of the crime of murder in the second degree, in killing one Ragan.

In impaneling the trial jury, R. Carrol, testifying as to his competency to serve as a juror, in answer to questions propounded by prisoner’s counsel, stated that he had formed an opinion as to the guilt pr innocence of the prisoner, but did not know whether that opinion was qualified or unqualified; that his opinion was formed from rumor and from what he [642]had heard of the case from those who pretended to know the facts; that he believed the statements of these persons, though he did not know whether they were witnesses or not; that he still entertained the same opinion, and that considerable evidence would be required to remove that opinion, and that unless such evidence was produced to change his opinion it was fixed and certain; that he had talked with different persons, and had expressed his opinion without any qualification.

In answer to inquiries made by the Court, he stated that he had no prejudice against the defendant; that he could decide the case impartially; that the opinion he had formed would not influence his judgment; that he would be governed by the evidence, etc.

Upon these facts a challenge for implied bias, interposed by the prisoner, was overruled by the Court below, and Carrol was challenged peremptorily by the prisoner, whose peremptory challenges were exhausted during the impaneling of the jury.

In overruling the challenge for implied bias the Court below manifestly erred.

The statute (Section 347) provides that a challenge for implied bias may be offered for any one of certain causes therein enumerated, among them, that the proposed juror has “formed or expressed an unqualified opinion or belief that the prisoner is guilty or not guilty of the offense charged.”

Here it is undisputed that Carrol had “expressed his opinion without any qualification.”

The statute declares that the unqualified expression of an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner is ground of challenge for implied bias. When such challenge is interposed it is no answer to say that in the mind or thought of the party the opinion was qualified, though in its form of expression it was unqualified. In- People v. Cottle, 6 Cal. 228, [643]