People v. Brown

California Supreme Court May 31, 1887 No. No. 20277Published

Before: Temple

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in sustaining objections to questions intended to probe a prospective juror's bias, as counsel has a right to examine the character and force of a juror's fixed opinion to determine their impartiality.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining objections to questions regarding a prospective juror's fixed opinion on the defendant's guilt.
Whether a defendant is entitled to examine a juror to determine if their prejudice prevents them from acting with entire impartiality.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The purpose of the attempted examination was to ascertain so far as possi-. ble the extent of this opinion, its character, and whether it resulted to any extent from prejudice against defendant or his case.”

“We think the examination was proper, and that the court erred in sustaining the objections of the district attorney.”

“The court is not bound to take the simple statement of the juror upon these matters, but counsel have a right to make such inquiries as will bring out the character and force of the conviction he has.”

Synopsis

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County, and from an order refusing a new trial.

On the trial, a witness who was present at the killing was asked by the defendant whether a certain wound found in the body of the deceased was caused by the entrance or exit of the bullet fired by the defendant. The prosecution -objected to the question on the ground that no proper foundation had been laid therefor, and because it did not appear that the witness was an expert on gunshot wounds, or was a surgeon. The court sustained the objection. The further facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Temple, J. The defendant was tried upon a charge of murder, and was convicted of murder in the first degree. The appeal is from the judgment, and from an order denying a new trial.

On the trial, M. P. Troxler was examined as to his qualifications as a juror. He stated that he had heard [391]some talk of the case, and had read accounts of the affair in the local newspapers, and he thought he read the evidence taken before the coroner, and had formed an opinion in reference to the guilt or - innocence of the defendant. He was then asked by defendant’s counsel, “Was.that opinion favorable or unfavorable to the defendant?”

Objection was made that it was irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial, and the court sustained the objection. Defendant then asked: “ What is your opinion now from what you have read as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant ? ” To which there was interposed the same objection, and the same ruling was made.

The court also refused to allow the following:—- “ What impression did the reading of these articles make on your mind?”

Counsel then asked : —•

“ Could you enter upon the trial of this case with the presumption that the defendant is innocent until he was proved guilty ? or would you enter upon the trial presuming that defendant is guilty, and desiring to see him vindicated by the testimony of the witnesses here ? ” Answer : “ I don’t think I could.”

Question by counsel for the defense: “That is, you don’t think you could enter upon the trial of the case with the belief that the defendant is innocent ? ”

Answer : “ No, sir.”

Question by counsel for defense : “ Do you think you could give the defendant a fair and impartial trial ? ” Answer: “ I think I could, notwithstanding I have an opinion from what I have heard and read. It would take good evidence to remove that opinion.”

Question: “ In other words, you would be of opinion that defendant is guilty until he had proved himself innocent; is n’t that the exact state of your mind? ” Objected to as being irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial.

[392]

People v. Brown

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief