The opinion of the court was delivered by
The defendant was convicted on seven counts of being a persistent violator of the intoxicating-liquor law of this state, and appeals.
He argues that there was error committed by the court in not granting to the defendant a new trial on aсcount of the misconduct of the jury in receiving information in the jury room outside of that introduced on the witness stand. The information complained of was shown by the testimony of one of the jurors. He testified that in thе jury room another juror who had been- vоting for acquittal voted for conviction and, in explanation of his change of attitude, stated his son had told him something which influеnced him to vote for conviction. The juror whose conduct was thus attackеd, when placed on the witness stand by the stаte, denied making the statement attributed tо him. That presented an issue of fact for determination by the court, which found against the contention of the defendant. That finding is conclusive. (Barber v. Emery,
The defendant argues that the motion for a new trial should have bеen granted because of misconduсt of the jury in that one of the jurors thought he was agreeing to a verdict of guilty on onе count only instead of seven counts. When questioned in' the court room after thе verdict had been read, concerning whether it was the verdict of the jury, that juror fаiled to make any response. A juror аfter agreeing to a verdict cannot be permitted to say that he did not agrеe to it. (State v. Johnson,
Defendant argues that the motiоn for a new trial should have been granted on the ground that one of the jurors was сoerced into agreeing to a vеrdict of guilty on seven counts. The juror testified that he was ill, that the tobacco smoke of the jury room made him sick, and that he agreed to a verdict in order to gеt out
The judgment is affirmed.