Commonwealth v. Minney

Citations

• 216 Pa. 149
• 65 A. 31
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 581

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Murder—Jury—Challenge—Conscientious scruples — Preconceived opinions.</p> <p>A juror’s conscientious scruples against capital punishment, or his preconceived opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, are good grounds for challenge, and the test of such scruples or such an opinion as a disqualification, is the juror’s own testimony as to his ability to throw aside their influence and render a verdict according to the evidence alone; but this test is not to be applied solely on the juror’s own conclusion. His ability as well as his willingness must be shown to the satisfaction of the judge, and the latter must be allowed a large measure of discretion.</p> <p>Where a juror states that he has conscientious scruples against capital punishment, but testifies that he would bring in a verdict according to the evidence, although it “would worry his conscience” or “would do violence to his conscience,” the trial judge cannot be charged with error in sustaining the commonwealth’s challenge for cause.</p> <p>In a murder trial a prisoner has no right to the service of any particular juror on his panel. If he has a legal and impartial jury this is all he is entitled to.</p> <p>The fact that a juror uses the term “fixed opinion” does not disqualify him if he still declares that he can disregard it and be governed by the evidence alone.</p> <p>Criminal law — Murder—Charge—Omissions.</p> <p>Where the judge in his charge, reviewing the evidence, omits or insufficiently refers to portions that counsel think material, it is their duty to call the judge’s attention to them before the case goes to the jury, so that the error, if there is one, may be corrected before it has done any harm.</p>