Commonwealth v. House

Citations

• 3 Pa. Super. 304
• 1897 Pa. Super. LEXIS 16

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Embezzlement—Juror—Challenge for cause.</p> <p>Where it clearly appears that a juror has formed a fixed opinion of the prisoner’s guilt, he should not be permitted to say that he can act impartially, or at least he should not be accepted on his own dictum.</p> <p>Qualification of juror — Preconceived opinion.</p> <p>Where a juror testifies on his voir dire that he had formed and expressed an opinion with Reference to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but not of a character to prevent him from fairly trying the case, and that if sworn as a juror he could render a verdict in accordance with the evidence produced in court, such juror is prima facie competent.</p> <p>But this preconceived opinion becomes a fatal objection when it appears that the jm'or was the owner of a newspaper in which many editorials had been published pronouncing defendant guilty, and that the juror had read these editorials and approved of the sentiments in them with regard to the case.</p> <p>As evidence of prejudgment the deliberate and repeated publication of opinions with the juroi-’s approval, in a newspaper in part owned by him, is not less conclusive than the deliberate expression of opinion, reduced to writing and signed by the juror, which in Com. v. Cleary, 148 Pa. 26, was held to disqualify.</p> <p>Practice, Superior Court — Assignments of error — Rules of court.</p> <p>Assignments are defective which do not contain references to the preceding’testimony necessary to make them self-explanatory and to show fully on’what they are based. .</p> <p>While the practice of presenting an excerpt from the stenographer’s notes, in an assignment of error, has obvious advantages, it has manifest limitations, and there are occasions which would be better served by the formal bill of exceptions long employed by the profession, but now apparently regarded, though quite erroneously, as not “ up to date.”</p>