McAdory v. StateMcAdory v. State
On an indictment charging assault with intent to murder the indictee was convicted of the lesser offensе of assault and battery.
We agree with appellant’s counsel that the only question of meritorious, re,viewable concern is whether or not a juror who is employed by the State оf Alabama is subject to challenge for cause in a criminal prosecution.
The juror in thе instant case worked in one of the “State stores.” We presume that this employment was in оne of the State liquor stores.
Under the provisions of Section 6, Article I of the 1901 Constitution of Alаbama *350 and the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States an accused shall have the right tо a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury.
The disqualifications of a prospective jurоr, on account of bias may be actual or implied; that is to say, it may be bias in fact or it mаy be bias as a matter of law.
In the case at bar, we are not concerned with the former ground for disqualification.
There is no proof or contention that the nature or circumstance of the juror’s employment was in any manner involved in the prosecution, unless it can be said that the mere fact that he worked for the State made it so.
Our courts have, held thаt a person who is employed by a municipality is subject to challenge for cause аs a juror to try a case in which the prosecution is based oil a violation of an ordinance of the city employer. Shapiro v. City of Birmingham,
It is our view that these authorities are not in point or controlling. These prosecutions were quasi criminal in nature. The municipality was a party to the cause. Therefore we held that the, situation was in effect analоgous to a civil action against a city. City of Birmingham v. Gordon,
“Prosecution” is a term of criminal lаw. It is descriptive of the means adopted to bring an accused to justice, by due process of law. It is a proceeding in which the whole community, considered as a community in its soсial capacity, is involved. In this aspect society is designated or described as “The State”, “The People”, “The Commonwealth.” The “State”, etc., is acting simply as the instrument of the public in enforcing penal laws in order that society may be protected from infractiоns thereof.
If appellant’s insistences were extended to an ultimate rationale, each citizen of a State would be disqualified to serve as a juror in a criminal proseсution. What possible interest has a State employee, merely as such, different from that of any citizen who desires to see crime properly punished ?
In the case of Crawford v. United States,
The disqualification was based on the notion or theory that at common law a servant of the crown was not a qualified juror and this disqualification was contained in the constitutional requirements or inhibitions.
The Crawford case was discussed and, for all practical purposes, Overruled in United States v. Wood,
In the case of United States v. Chapman, 10 Cir.,
In response to the review the court held in effect that under the common law there is no settled rule that establishes that a juror is disqualified per se in a cause in which the government is a party because he is a governmental employee. The court expressed this view: “The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not considered the point, but we perceive no reason why it would not adopt this сonstruction and interpretation of the synonymous words ‘employer’ and ‘employee’, аs used in the Oklahoma statute.”
*351
We think there are logical analogy and influencing authority in that linе of cases which hold that certain officers are not subject to challenge for cause ,as for implied bias in prosecutions for violations of criminal laws of the state in whiсh they serve. We will cite these cases’ without comment: Jackson v. State,
In our view, the appellant’s position in the case at bar is not supported by reason or authority.
The judgment below is ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.