State v. Murphy

Criminal Law — Verdict of Jury — Impeachment of Verdict. — The verdict of a jury in a criminal ease cannot he impeached by the affidavit of a third person, as to statements by a juror, detailing the case to which an exhibit, taken to the jury-room upon suggestion of counsel for the defendant was put by the jury. (Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Owyhee County. It was decided by the supreme court of Idaho territory in' one of its earlier decisions, that because a file which, in a counterfeiting case, had been introduced in evidence, and taken to the juryroom, had been inspected by the jury, was not such misconduct as would vitiate the verdict, unless it was shown that it had some prejudicial effect on the jury. (People v. Page, 1 Idaho, 106; Gresser v. Slate (Tex. Cr.), 40 S. W. 595; 12 Am. & Eng. Eney. of Law, 376; State v. Sanders, 68 Mo. 202, 30-Am. Eep. 782; Tates v. People, 38 Ill. 527; Jim v. State, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 289; People v. Tipton, 73 Cal. 405; Hendricks v. State, 28 Tex. App. 418, 13 S. W. 672.) Where facts-are established which show that improper influences were brought to bear upon the jury, or that they were guilty of improper conduct such as might have resulted prejudicially to the losing party, a presumption arises against the purity of the-verdict; and unless there is testimony which shows that their verdict was not affected by such influence or conduct, it will beset aside. (Ned v. State, 33 Miss. 364, 372; Organ v. State„ 26 Miss. 83 ; Commonwealth, v. Shields, 2 Bush, 81; Davis v-State, 35 Ind. 496, 9 Am. Rep. 760, note; Westmoreland v. State, 45 6a. 225, 282; Coker v. State, 20 Ark. 53, 60; People-v. Turner, 39 Cal. 370, 375; 12 Eney. of Pi. & Pr. 522 et seq.),- In reply to the argument of appellant, we say that the verdict of a jury cannot be impeached by the affidavit of a juror as to. the misconduct of the jury. (Griffith v. Montandon, 39 Pac. 548.) And further than this, that the misconduct of the jury cannot be shown by the affidavit of third parties as to statements-, or declarations made by jurors. (People v. Azof, 105 Cal. 632;, State v. Schaefer, 116 Mo. 96, 22 S. W. 447; State v. Corcoran,. 50 La. Ann. 453, 23 South. 511; Thompson & Merriman on Juries, see. 445; Thompson on Trials, secs. 2604, 2622; 12 Am., & Eng. Eney. of Law, 378; Taylor v. Commonwealth, 90 Va.. 109, 17 S. E. 812; State v. Wether ell, 70 Vt. 274, 40 Atl. 728; Bailey v. State (Tex. Cr.), 38 S. W. 992.)