Commonwealth v. Nye
Citations
- 240 Pa. 359
- 87 A. 585
- 1913 Pa. LEXIS 678
Syllabus
<p>Criminal law — Murder—Summoning jurors — Act of April H, 188Jf, P. L. 888 — Selection of jury — Challenge for cause — Motion to quash array — Charge of court.</p> <p>1. The provisions of the Act of April 14, 1834, P. L. 333, relating to the method of* summoning jurors, are directory in character. They do not prescribe or bear upon the substance of any duty, but merely upon the manner of its performance. It is no ground for quashing an array of jurors, therefore, that the sheriff had summoned them by mail instead of* by delivering separate tickets to each in the manner prescribed by the act, where it appeared that all the jurors summoned except six acknowledged receipt of the notices and were present in court when the case was called for trial. It is not ground for challenging an array of. jurors that some of them do not attend, especially where, ¿s in this case,'more than the statutory number of forty-eight were actually present.</p> <p>2. It is proper for the court in the trial of a murder case to direct the jurors to be examined in accordance with the Act of March 6, 1901, P. L. 16, although the method of examination designated by that act may be contrary to a. custom previously obtaining in the courts of the .said county.</p> <p>3. In summoning jurors in a murder case, the sheriff has no right to interrogate them as to whether'they have conscientious scruples on capital punishment, or have formed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. If he does so, the panel so summoned will,- upon motion, be discharged; but where the court, when the matter is called to his attention, asks counsel for defendant whether they desire to make a motion to discharge the panel stating that if such a motion were made he would sustain it, and defendant’s counsel decline to make it, they cannot thereafter raise the point nor challenge individual jurors for cause on that ground. Their action amounts to a waiver of the irregularity in the conduct of the sheriff, and is
Judges: Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Potter, Stewart
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.