State v. Williams

Citations

• 31 S.C. 238
• 9 S.E. 853
• 1889 S.C. LEXIS 27

Syllabus

<p>1. A and B being jointly indicted for murder, A was first tried and convicted. B being then put upon his trial, three jurors who had served on the petit jury which convicted A, were presented to the prisoner after ho had exhausted his peremptory challenges. B objected to them upon the ground that they had served on the jury in A's case, but they having declared on their voir dire that they had formed no opinion as to B’s guilt or innocence, and were sensible of no bias or prejudice in the matter, the trial judge ordered the three jurors to be sworn. Was this legal error ?</p> <p>2. A juror being called in B’s case who had testified as á witness in A’s case, the trial judge of his own motion, without any examination on the juror’s voir dire, declared this juror to be prejudiced, and ordered him to stand aside. This was error.</p> <p>3. The trial judge having in his charge so commented upon the facts as to indicate to the jury that he thought the prisoner was guilty and should be convicted, the charge was obnoxious to section 26 of article IV., of the Constitution, and the prisoner is therefore entitled to anew trial. Mb. Justice McGowan concurred in the result.</p>