Armor v. State

<p>1. After a jury has been impaneled, and before the prosecuting counsel submits any of his evidence in the ease, if it is discovered that a member of the jury is disqualified, he may be set aside and a new jury impaneled. The fact that the order recites, that, upon the disqualification of the juror being ascertained, the solicitor moved that a mistrial be declared, and the defendant’s counsel objected; that the motion was withdrawn, and the solicitor offered to proceed to trial before the jury as impaneled, or before the remaining qualified jurors; that the defendant’s counsel objected to both these motions; and that the solicitor renewed his former motion to have a mistrial declared, which was sustained, does not alter the ruling set forth above.</p> <p>S3. It appearing that after a mistrial was declared the case was continued to the next term, and there being nothing to show that there wepe other jurors present, or that there was not sufficient ground for such continuance, error will not be presumed on that account.</p> <p>3. After another jury had been impaneled, a plea of former jeopardy, which set forth the occurrence as' stated in the preceding notes, was properly stricken.</p>