Brown v. State

Citations

• 60 Miss. 447

Syllabus

<p>1. Orimutai. Law. Practice. New-trial. Showing as to incompetency of juror.</p> <p>tr., having been convicted on an indictment for murder, made a motion for a new trial, on the ground that “ one of the jurors who tried the case had formed and expressed an opinion of the case before the trial.” In support of his motion the defendant filed the afiidavit of A. 0., to the eifeot that his brother, F. C., who was one of the jurors who rendered the verdict, told him before the term of court commenced that he, F. C., had carefully examined the scene of the homicide, and believed that the defendant assassinated the deceased; and that affiant did not communicate this fact to the’defendant or his counsel till after the jury had been empanelled. Neither the defendant nor , his counsel made affidavit that they were ignorant of F. O.’s declaration before he was sworn as a juror. The motion was overruled. Held, that the motion was properly overruled. A new trial in such a case should not be granted, unless supported by the affidavits of both the defendant and his counsel that they were each ignorant of the incompetency of the juror when he was accepted.</p> <p>2. Same. New trial. Incompetency of juror. Examination on voir dire.</p> <p>It was proper to deny the motion in the case above stated for the further reason that the record does not show affirmatively that the juror was examined on his voir dire, and then disclaimed having formed or expressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.</p>