24 W. Va. 767 | W. Va. | 1884
The prisoner took several bills of exceptions, which were duly signed, one to the overruling of the prisoner’s challenge to the juror Mitchell, another to the overruling of the prisoner’s challenge to the juror Ballard, another to the judgment of the court in overruling prisoner’s motion to be permitted to open and conclude the argument, another to the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant the prisoner a now trial, another to the refusal of the court to arrest the judgment, and another to the giving of instructions to the jury.
It is here earnestly insisted by counsel for prisoner that the indictment under our Bill of Bights is bad; that by it the prisoner was not “fully and plainly inlormed of the character and cause of the accusation against him,” a right which is guaranteed to him by our Constitution, and wliich the counsel of prisoner insists was violated in his being held to answer the indictment in this case. Chapter 118 of the Acts of the Legislature of 1882, amending chapter 144 of the Code, in its first section, declares: “Murder by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or any wilful, deliberate and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit arson, rape, robbery or burglary, is murder of the first degree. All other murder is murder of the second degree. In an indictment for murder and manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which, or the means, by which the death of the deceased was caused, but it shall be sufficient in every such indictment to
In Noles v. The State 24 Ala. 672, the indictment was as
“We readily concede that to give effect to the spirit and meaning of this clause there must in all prosecutions for indictable offences, be such an accusation at the suit of the State, found true by the oaths of a grand jury, as shall furnish to the accused reasonable information of what he is called upon to answer by setting forth the constituent of the offence or crime with which he is attempted to be charged. It would not be competent for the Legislature to make that an*772 indictment which failed to accuse a party of crime. Regard must be had to the nature of the accusation, as embodying and setting forth with reasonable certainty a charge of the crime for which the prisoner is to be tried. An indictment for larceny could not by legislative enactment, be made an indictment for murder, without violating the true spirit and meaning of this provision in the bill of rights; but if the indictment set forth with reasonable certainty the crime for which the accused is to be tried, as the Legislature may alter the common-law, it may declare the indictment to be good, notwithstanding it may fail to contain many averments required by the common-law to mate it valid. There must be an indictment before a party call be put on his trial for an indictable offence. In other words, ‘ there must be a written accusation of the party at the suit of the State, of a crime, presented upon oath by a jury of twelve or more men, called a grand jury.’ 1 Arch. Cr. Pl. 63. * * Row although this indictment would not be good at the common-law, because it is wanting in certain formalities which were required by the rules of that law; yet it is certaiuly an indictment — that is, it is a ‘written accusation of a crime against the prisoner found by a grand jury’ — and it is a compliance, in our opinion, with the spirit of our fundamental law.”
This decision was followed in Thompson v. The State, 25 Ala. 41, and Aiken v. State, 35 Ala. 399.
In Newcomb v. The State, 37 Miss. 397, the indictment was for murder, and almost in the words of the indictment in Noles’s Case, supra. It was framed under the provisions of the Code of Mississippi, which declares that “in an indictment for homicide it shall not be necessary to set forth the mannner in which or the means by which the death of the deceased was caused, but that it shall be sufficient to charge in an indictment for murder, that the defendant did feloniously, wil-fully and of malice aforethought, kill and murder the deceased.” It was insisted that the statute was in violation of the clause in the Constitution, which secures to a party accused of crime the right “to demand the nature and cause of the accusation.” Handy, J., speaking for the court said, “is the statute then authorizing this indictment in violation
In Wolf v. The State, 19 Ohio St. 248, the defendant was indicted for manslaughter. The indictment charged that “Jeremiah C. Wolf on-at-one Samuel Lee, then and there being did unlawfully kill and slay.” The Code of
In the last named case 37 Penn. St. 108, it -was assigned as error “that the indictment is insufficient in law' to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree, in that it fails to meet the constitutional requirement, the nature and cause of the accusation not being fully set forth.” The court by Strong, J., said: “The indictment is in strict conformity with
This decision was followed in Campbell v. Commonwealth, 84 Penn. St. 187, also in Goerson v. Commonwealth, 99 Penn. 388. In this case Mercer, J., for the court said:
“This indictment charges the murder in the language ot the act to have been committed feloniously, wilfully and with malice aforethought. -Conceding this to be so, it is contended the act is in conflict with section 9 of the Declaration of Nights, which declares that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The argument is based on the assumption that ‘nature and cause’ are equivalent to ‘mode or manner.’ They are clearly distinct. The nature and cause of a criminal prosecution are sufficiently averred by charging the crime alleged to have been committed. This must be done. The mode or manner refers to the instrument with which it was committed, or the specific agency used to accomplish the result. It is not necessary to aver either of these in the indictment.” See United States v. Simmons, 96 U. S. 360.
In McLaughlin v. The State, 45 Ind. it was held, that an indictment charging the defendant with selling liquor contrary to law must give the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold. If it were a question of first impression we would so hold, but as we have already decided, the Virginia court by a line of decisions the other way before the separation had bound us under the doctrine of stare decisis.
In Rowan v. The State, 30 Wisc. 129, Cole, J., said: “Section 12 of chapter 137 provides that ‘in indictments or
The contrary of the doctrine announced in the foregoing cases, has been held in State v. Mott, 29 Ark. 147; Clary v. State, 33 Ark. 561.
The Arkansas cases combat the position taken in the cases, which wo have reviewed, with but little force, referring to but few authorities. • The other cases cited by the counsel for the plaintiff in error, to-wit: Murphy v. State, 24 Miss. 590, Sane v. Sane, 28 Miss. 637, and Norris v. State, 33 Miss.
From this review of the authorities, it is clear that the Legislature would have no right under a Constitution like ours to dispense with an indictment for murder; hut from tírese authorities it is equally clear that, the accusation we are considering is an indictment; it was found upon the oaths of a grand jury, and is a written accusation against Guenther Schnelle for murder, and it seems to us equally clear that it “fully and plainly informs the defendant of the character and cause of the accusation against him” as required by section 14 of our Bill of Bights. When Guenther Schnelle was charged by the grand jury with “feloniously, wilfully, maliciously, deliberately and unlawfully slaying, killing and murder inf/’ a fellow being, he -was fully and plainly informed, of the character of the accusation against him. He was in plain and unmistakable terms informed that the grand jury of Ohio county had charged him with murder; and when by the same grand jury, he was charged in the said written accusation, of “feloniously, wilfully, maliciously, deliberately, and unlawfully slaying, killing and murdering Guenther Sehuchardt,” he was thereby fully and plainly informed, that the killing of the said Sehuchardt with such motives was the cause of his being accused of murdering him. How could he be any more fully and plainly informed of the character and cause of the accusation against him? Would he have been any better informed thereof, if the indictment had contained all the sickening details of how he had mutilated him, with what instrument, and the length and depth of the wound inflicted, and that Sehuchardt languished from the effects thereof, and from said wounds died ? What good purpose could have been subserved by setting out all this in the indictment? He certainly could not with all this have been any more fully and plainly informed- of the “character and cause” of the accusation, than by the indictment, which he was called upon to meet. He knew by this indictment,
The Constitution very wisely protects the accused from being indicted for one crime and on that same indictment being tried lor and convicted of another crime. lie must in ■the indictment be fully and plainly informed of the precise crime, for which he is to be tried, so that he may know against what to prepare his defence, and may plead the judgment in bar of another indictment against him for the same offence. This he could not do, unless he was fully and plainly informed of the character of the accusation, because he might be tried for some other crime than the one, for which he was indicted; and if he was not informed, whom he had murdered, or against whom the crime was committed, he would not be informed of the cause of the accusation and would not know how to defend .himself, and could not plead the iormor conviction or acquittal in bar of another prosecution for the same offence.
By this indictment, we think the defendant was fully and plainly informed of the character and cause of the accusation, and that the statute prescribing the said form of indictment is therefore constitutional.
But it is argued by counsel for plaiutiff in error that, if the indictment is good, it amounts to nothing more than an indictment for murder in the second degree. This position was taken in Noles’s Case, 24 Ala., and at page 688 Chilton, C. J., for the court said: “We must need say that the form pursued, being that prescribed by the Code, the objections cannot be valid, if’ the Legislature had power to enact that
The prisoner Toy his counsel also insists, that he should have been permitted' to open and close the ai-gument to the jury, because he relied upon the defence of insanity. The plea was not guilty, and although the burden of proof may shift during the trial of a criminal case, yet the general burden of proving the guilt of the prisoner being on the State, in no case in a criminal trial is the counsel for the defendant entitled to open and conclude the-argument to the jury.
The instructions at the instance of the State and objected to by the prisoner are, first, the same as approved by the eleventh point in the syllabus in Cain’s Case, 20 W. Va. 679; and the second is approved by the second point of the syllabus in Robinson’s Case, 20 W. Va. 713, and both points are here again affirmed. See also Jones’s Case, 20 W. Va. 764, and Greer’s Case, 22 W. Va. 800. The third instruction is: “ That every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for crime committed by him, until the contrary is proved to the satisfaction of the jury.” This instruction propounds the law correctly, as we have seen from Robinson’s Case, supra.
J. L. .Ballard was sworn on his voire dire and in answer to questions said ho was not on the grand jury, who found the indictment; that he was not related to the deceased or the defendant; that he had no interest in the ease; that he was not sensible of any bias or prejudice for or against the accused, but said he had formed and expressed an opinion as to his innocence or guilt; that said opinion was based upon what
Question — “Did you read the evidence?” Answer — “I couldn’t say, I read nearly everything that pertained to the ease at that time.” •
Question — “And you formed an opinion then?” Answer —“I did, yes, sir.”
Question — “You formed an opinion from the evidence?” Answer — “Yes, sir, I think T read the evidence. I read nearly everything.”
Question — “And you would go into this trial with that opinion previously formed?” Answer' — '“I had that opinion at that time, since that time I haven’t thought of the matter at all.”
Question — “J3ut the opinion you formed at that time was formed from newspaper reports, and you think you could ignore that opinion eutirely?” Answer — “Yes, sir.”
Question — “Leave it eutirely out of consideration and decide the ease on the evidence and law ?” Answer — “Yes, sir.”
The prisoner objected to the said Ballard being sworn asa juror; the court overruled the objection and the said Ballard was sworn and acted as juror in the trial of the case, and the prisoner excepted. Here is- a man sworn as a juror, who had read the newspaper reports of the homicide and the evidence in the preliminary examination of the charge against the prisoner, and who had from such reports and evidence formed and expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, but who by prompt answers to questions says he has no bias or prejudice agaiust the prisoner, and the opinion so formed will not influence him in the trial of the issue. "Why should he be excluded from the jury? Merely because from what he had heard of the case from what he had read he had formed and expressed an opinion of the guilt or innocence of the accused? Such a rule would put a discount on intelligence and a premium on ignorance. The human mind is so constituted, that when it receives information on any subject, it will at once form a
Question — “Upon what is that based ?” Answer — “Upon the evidence of the case that I read in the paper.”
Question — “Were you present at the examining court?” Answer — “Ho, sir.”
Question — “Have you conversed with any of the witnesses, that you know of?” Answer — “Hot that I am aware of.”
Question — “Do you think you could give the prisoner a fair and impartial trial notwithstanding the opinion you may have formed ?” Answer — “That is a hard question to answer. I suppose I could.”
Question — “Do you think that your opinion is of that decided character, that it would influence your verdict in de-' ciding upon the evidence which might be offered in the case?” Answer — “Well, it might be, though I am hardly the person to judge that.” Being told he “was the sole judge” he said: “I don’t know what the -weight of my thoughts are.”
Question — “Have you any doubt as to whether you would be governed solely by the evidence and the law in the case?” Answer — “Ho, I do not believe I would be governed by any-
Question — “Then do you think this opinion you may have formed would influence your verdict ?” Answer — “I don’t know that it would.”
Question — “Do you think or believe that it would ?” Answer — “Well I don’t believe that it would.”
This is in striking contrast with the condition of mind of the juror Ballard. lie knew his mental condition with reference to the opinion formed, and could say that it would not influence him in his verdict. Here the juror, who seems to be entirely honest, halts and hesitates in his answers, and evidently does not know and cannot and does not say, that his mind is free to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the accused uninfluenced by his previously formed opinion. The prisoner has no right to object to any juror, who, although he has formed, and expressed an opinion as to his guilt or innocence, yet can truthfully say that his mind is free from prejudice, and that the opinion previously formed will not influence him in his verdict; but unless the proposed juror understands his own mind on the question, and can promptly say, that it is at that time free from prejudice, and that his mind is entirely free to pass upon the guilt or innocence of the accused upon the evidence submitted to him as such juror, he is not a competent juror and should be ordered to stand aside. We think the answers of the proposed juror, Mitchell, while they indicate that he is an honest, conscientious man,yet do not show'that he was free from prejudice, when he was offered as ajuror,and the court erred to theprejudice of the prisoner in overruling the objection to him and ordering him to be sworn as a juror in the case.
For this error alone the judgment of the circuit court of Ohio county is reversed, the verdict of the jury set aside and the case remanded for a new trial.
Reversed. Remanded.