Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

WELLS v. STATE.

1. CRIMINAL LAW. Error, if any, in not keeping jury box locked and sealed and prematurely preparing jury list was cured where jury was impaneled and sworn to try case in view of curative statute ( Code 1930, sections 2033, 2040-2042, 2064).

Defendant moved to quash venire from which jury that tried him was drawn because jury box had not been locked and kept closed and sealed, as required by Code 1930, section 2033, and because jury list was prepared by sheriff and clerks of the circuit and chancery courts twenty-one days before the beginning of the term of court when it should have been prepared, under sections 2040-2042, within fifteen days thereof.

2. CRIMINAL LAW.

Defendant's requested instructions, manifestly argumentative and on weight of evidence, were properly refused.

Smith, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from a conviction of manslaughter. The appellant moved the court to quash the venire from which the jury that tried him was drawn for two reasons: (1) That the jury box had not been "locked and kept closed and sealed," as required by Section 2033, Code 1930; 2d that the jury list was prepared by the sheriff and clerks of the circuit and chancery courts twenty-one days before the beginning of the term of court, when it should have been prepared, under sections 2040 and 2042, Code 1930, within fifteen days thereof. The clerk of the court testified that the jury box was not locked, but was kept by him in his office vault where his records were. This motion was overruled; no error was thereby committed, for the reason that these irregularities are within the curative provisions of section 2064, Code 1930.

Two instructions were refused the appellant. Both of them are manifestly argumentative and on the weight of the evidence, and therefore were properly refused.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

WELLS v. STATE
(Mar 30, 1931)