People v. Searcey

Cbiminal Law—Murder—Challenge to Panel.—Upon the trial of a defendant accused o£ murder, the mere fact that some names of persons appeared upon the list of jurors that did not appear upon the last assessment-roll of the county is not of itself a sufficient departure from the demands of the law to justify the trial court in sustaining a challenge to the panel; nor is such challenge justified on the ground that a town of fifteen hundred inhabitants was not represented npon the list, where there is no showing that the township in which it was situated was not so represented.

In.—Excuse of Jurors fob Cause—Discretion.—The court has very broad discretion in excusing part of the summoned jurors for cause; and the defendant cannot object to the venire on that ground, but must be satisfied, in that regard, if he is tried by twelve qualified, competent jurors.

id.—New Trial—Misconduct of District Attorney—Opening Statement. A new trial may be granted for misconduct of the district attorney in his opening statement, where it is clear that he has in bad faith improperly attempted to influence the jury to the defendant’s damage; hut will not be granted where there is no such palpable wrong in his conduct as to justify the conclusion that he was actuated by had faith in making the statement.

In.—Proposed Proof—Arrest of Defendant for Different Offense—Exclusion of Evidence.—An opening statement of the district attorney that he proposed to prove that the defendant was traveling in the same direction with the deceased at about the time and place of the homicide, and knew that officers of the law were approaching in the same, direction to arrest him for burglary, and that he was arrested one day later, about thirty miles distant from the place of the homicide, while traveling toward the arresting officers, for the purpose of showing the improbability of his conduct unless he had been guilty of the murder, does not disclose any bad faith amounting to misconduct on the part of the district attorney, it not being clearly evident that he was wrong as to the admissibility of the proposed evidence, though the trial court excluded the evidence bearing upon the defendant's commission of another offense.

Id.—-Circumstantial Evidence—Tracks in Sand—Comparison Before Jury. Where a witness had testified that a few days subsequent to the homicide he visited the scene of the crime, and found peculiar tracks in the sand of a person leading therefrom, which he followed a distance of fifteen miles, and found that a pair of shoes in his possession, taken from the feet of the defendant', exactly fitted those tracks, and thereafter produced before the jury a box of sand containing impressions of shoe tracks, which he testified were made by him with the shoes of the defendant, and that the tracks so made were of an identical character with those found in the sand upon • .the desert, and that the sand in the box was of the same quality and of the same character of hardness and compactness, the introduction of such box of sand before the jury was not erroneous, but was admissible to show by comparison the character of the foot tracks upon the desert, and for the purpose of accurately describing to the\ jury the appearance of those tracks. It was an indirect’ but satisfactory and legal way of proving the material link in the chain of circumstances connecting the defendant with the murder.