Whitehead v. State

Citations

• 97 Miss. 537
• 52 So. 259

Syllabus

<p>1. Ckiminal Law. Burglary. Jury. Challenge to array. Grounds. Continuance.</p> <p>That the members of the regular venire in attendance when a criminal case is called for trial had been either disqualified, or qualified, but peremptorily challenged, in the trial of another person separately indicted for the same offense, and had heard a good deal of the case, would not disqualify them, as a whole, to act as jurors in the case on call, so as to require a continuance for want of a jury; but their qualifications to sit in the case should be determined by the court upon their voir dire examination, and even if the whole number disqualified themselves, for cause or otherwise, the' court may proceed to form the jury with tales-men, summoned from the bystanders.</p> <p>2. Same. Qualifications of jurors. Code 1906, § 2685.</p> <p>Under Code 1906, § 2685, providing that any person, otherwise competent, who will make oath that he is impartial in the case, shall be a “competent juror” in a criminal case, notwithstanding that he has an impression or opinion as to the guilt or innocence of accused, if it appear to the satisfaction of the court that he has no bias or prejudice, and no desire to reach any result, except that to which the evidence may conduct, a juror is not disqualified by any impression or opinion which he might have upon entering the jury box, since light impressions, which may fairly be supposed to yield to the testimony and leave the mind open to a fair consideration thereof, do not disqualify him.</p>