(Download) "State v. Hay" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: State v. Hay
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 27, 1948
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 57 KB
Description
1. Jury ? Purpose of statute on special panel. The statute allowing the court to draw a special panel of jurors from jury box No. 3 sufficient to complete the jury is intended to enable the court to proceed without undue delay where the regular panel, which is ample for all ordinary purposes, has been exhausted, because of an unusual number of disqualifications for cause in the particular case on trial, or where the jury empaneled in the case previously submitted is still in deliberation. 2. Jury ? Court had authority to draw from box No. 3. Judge from another judicial district who was serving in civil cause as judge called in under the statute had authority to draw additional jurors from jury box No. 3 to serve the remainder of the term, after making finding that only 19 of 70 whose names were drawn on the regular jury panel had qualified and that the 19 jurors were insufficient "to complete the jury for the cause now on trial, and for other causes now set or to be set for trial on the present calendar," as against the contention that the jurors drawn by special judge were empowered to serve only on the case over which he presided. 3. Jury ? Right to an impartial jury. A defendant has a right to an impartial jury selected from proper place and drawn and summoned according to law. 4. Jury ? Exclusion of class of persons deprives fundamental rights. The systematic and intentional exclusion of a class of persons or a purposeful and deliberate design to secure a jury from a limited area instead of the entire county deprives the defendant of fundamental constitutional rights. 5. Jury ? No deprivation of right unless deliberate. Defendant who was charged with crime failed to establish that he had been deprived of his right to have a jury taken from a cross section of the county by showing that all members of the jury panel were residents of the county seat, in the absence of a showing that it was the result of a deliberate design. 6. Jury ? Manner for drawing must be lawful. Litigants are not entitled to have their causes tried before particular jurors or jurors selected from a panel drawn at a particular time, and their rights are sufficiently protected if a fair and impartial jury is drawn in the manner provided by law for drawing a jury. 7. Criminal law ? Erroneous instructions must be prejudicial. Erroneous instructions are not cause for reversal in the absence of any prejudice. 8. Criminal law ? Absence of transcript of evidence. The Supreme Court cannot determine whether erroneous instructions adversely affected the substantial rights of the accused, so as to require reversal, in the absence of a transcript of the evidence. 9. Criminal law ? Prejudice cannot be presumed. Prejudice cannot be presumed in a criminal case but it must be made to appear, either affirmatively by the record or by the denial of a substantial right from which the law imputes prejudice. 10. Criminal law ? Instructions, when erroneous. Instructions in the absence of evidence from the record may not be - Page 574 held erroneous unless they appear to be so upon any supposable state of facts which might have been presented by the evidence. 11. Criminal law ? Prejudicial error, what constitutes. Instructions relating to the impeaching of witnesses, though erroneous, did not constitute prejudicial error, in the absence of an affirmative showing in the record that the jury could have applied such contested instructions to the testimony of defendants witnesses. 12. Criminal law ? Objection to instruction insufficient. Objections to instructions relating to the impeaching of witnesses that "it is not a correct statement of the law; it is not applicable to facts in this case," and that "it is repetitious and not a correct statement of the law," were insufficient to present the question whether instructions were erroneous.
 "State v. Hay" by Supreme Court of Montana * Book PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}