FROM the Circuit '’Court of' Montgomery.-- Tried before the-Horn-JáMes B. -Martin. • Tiie prisoner ill this'case, Patrick Murphy, was indicted^ for the murder of Hugh Keys, and pleaded not guilty to-the indictment. “ On the trial,?-' as the bill of exceptions* states, “the court asked juror,' regularly summoned, whether be- had a fixed opinion -against capital or penitentiary punishment.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1861-01-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 1972
23 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
¶1By section 3585 of the Code it is provided; that, in' all trials for a capital or penitentiary offense, it is a good challenge for cause by the State, that-'the juror has a fixed opinion against cap-ital or penitentiary punishments. The statute makes the - specified cause a ground of- challenge by the State, but it cannot, without the most glaring perversion of its meaning,-, be understood as making it a ground of challenge by the Prisoner, or as.imposing upon the court the duty, ex mero moiu, of setting- aside a juror for the cause mentioned.The State mayt or-may. not; at its election, challenge a juror for the cause mentioned and the prisoner has no-right to complain-that the State forbears to "exercise the' right of challenge.
¶2[2.] It is possible that some portion 'of the evidence of” Mrs. Keys, which the court admitted against the prisoner’s ■ objection,- did-not servé te explain-either the expression as ■ to which she was contradicted, or her motivesy'but it is • certain that much of -it Was so-connected with the pb-rticu-lar-'expression, as to render the part so connected competent evidence. This being the case, the court,- as w-e have often decided, committed no reversible error-in'overriding a general objection to the entire evidence.- In placing our decision, however, upon this ground, we must not be understood as affirming, that any portion"of the evidence was illegal. Upon that subject we express no opinion..
¶3[3.] The counsel for the prisoner, though confessedly able, hav'e pointed out-nothing objectionable in the charge of the court; and if ¡there be any error in it, prejudicial to the prisoner, a careful examination has not enabled us to discover it. Construing the, charge in reference to the fact, indisputably established, that the killing was perpetrated With a deadly weapon, we think there can be no doubt that the instruction as to the presumption of malice was correct. — York's case, 9 Metcalf, 93; 3 Green. Ev. § 14.
