Skip to main content
· 11/7/1913

Commonwealth v. Sushinskie

Citations

  • 242 Pa. 406
  • 89 A. 564
  • 1913 Pa. LEXIS 894

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Procedu: ■■ — Jurors—Challenge for cause — Judi-. cial discretion.</p> <p>1. In exercising his discretion as to tbe fitness of a juror to serve in a trial for murder, tbe trial judge has tbe juror before bim and much latitude must be left to bim; and tbe weight to be given to tbe answers of the juror when examined on bis voir dire is not to be determined exclusively by tbe words as they appear in tbe printed record. They are first to be weighed by the trial judge, who, in tbe exercise of a vide discretion, may conclude that tbe juror is not competent to enter a jury box for tbe purpose of rendering an impartial verdict, notwithstanding bis words to tbe contrary; and nothing short of palpable error will warrant a reversal.</p> <p>2. Where on tbe trial, of one accused of murder a juror in answer to a question by the court, stated that be bad formed an opinion as to tbe guilt ore innocence of tbe accused, but that be could and would render a verdict according to tbe evidence if sworn as a juror in the case; but on cross-examination by the district attorney stated that he would take bis formed opinion with bim into tbe jury box and would keep it until be bad beard evidence to contradict or offset it and was thereupon challenged for cause and excused, a conviction of murder of the first degree and sentence of death should not be reversed. . r</p> <p>3. The court did not err in such case in excusing a juror challenged by the Commonwealth because he stated that “circumstantial evidence could not be strong enough for me to convict a man of murder of the first degree.”</p> <p>Practice, Supreme Court — Assignments of error — Defective assignments.</p> <p>4. Assignments of 'error complaining of alleged improper remarks by the district attorney, of the refusal of the court to withdraw a juror after such remarks were made, and of its refusal to instruct the jury to disregard them, will not be considered where it does not appear from the record what the remarks

Judges: Brown, Elkin, Fell, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter, Stewart

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.