The defendant was convicted of the offense of seduction, and .after the verdict had been published and before the jury had dispersed, and before sentence, he demаnded the right to poll the jury. This demand was refused, and the refusal was complained of in' the dеfendant’s motion for a new trial, the overruling of which is assigned as error. The trial judge, in a notе to the bill of exceptions, makes the following statement as to his reason for refusing thе request: “The above-stated case was submitted to the jury about four o’clock in the аfternoon. About eight o’clock the jury reported that an agreement had been reached. Upon the jury coming into the court the court inquired if a verdict had been agrеed upon, to which the jury replied in the affirmative; whereupon the verdict was received and published. The court thereupon inquired of counsel for defendant whether therе was any reason why the record should not then be completed by sentence being pronounced, aiid counsel, replying in the negative, made to the court in the presence of the jurors, who had not left the box, a statement of some length, asking that the cоurt show extreme leniency in imposing sentence. Counsel discussed the verdict of the jury reсommending the defendant to the mercy of the court, and suggested' that the jury probably thought that this ease was one in which such recommendation would reduce the punishment to that оf a misdemeanor, and called attention to the fact that while this was not the case the court had considerable latitude in fixing the penalty, mentioning that the punishment was from two to twenty years, and asking that the extreme minimum be imposed. The matter was discussed at cоnsiderable length by
, The right .to poll the jury should never be denied where demanded in time. The demand is always in time when made after the verdict is published and before the jury is dispersed, and before sentence. A waiver of the right should never be implied. Perhaps the statement of the juror that.he acted upon a misapprehension would not have been a sufficient reason for the court to refuse to aсcept the verdict of the jury, and require them
Judgment reversed.