The State v. Gleason, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri1886-04

88 Mo. 582

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment is affirmed. The St. Charles County circuit court had jurisdiction to try the defendant despite the delayed physical transfer of his person, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in selecting jurors from a panel different from the regular array.

The defendant was indicted for first-degree robbery in St. Louis County. After a mistrial, he sought a change of venue based on prejudice in both St. Louis County and the entire judicial circuit. The trial court granted the motion as to St. Louis County and transferred the case to St. Charles County, though it did not immediately order the defendant's physical transfer at that time. The defendant was later delivered to St. Charles County's custody, where he appeared, challenged the jurisdiction and the composition of the jury panel, and was ultimately convicted after refusing to enter a plea.

On appeal, the defendant argued that because the venue motion was based on prejudice in the entire circuit (of which St. Charles County is also a part), the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case in St. Charles County. The court rejected this argument, finding that the venue order was properly limited to correcting prejudice in St. Louis County alone, not the entire circuit. The failure to immediately transfer the defendant's body when the venue change was granted did not deprive the court of power to do so later. The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the jury composition, holding that statutes governing jury selection are directory rather than mandatory, and trial courts retain discretion to summon additional or replacement jurors as needed.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a change of venue to a county within the same prejudicial judicial circuit divests the trial court of jurisdiction
Whether failure to physically transfer the defendant when venue is changed affects subsequent jurisdiction
Whether trial courts may use jurors other than the regular array when necessary for court operations

Procedural posture

The defendant was convicted in St. Charles County circuit court following a change of venue from St. Louis County and appealed, challenging the court's jurisdiction and the composition of the jury panel.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Black, J.

The defendant and others were indicted in the circuit court of St. Louis county for robbery in the first degree. After one mistrial, a severance was ordered, and the venue changed to St. Charles county, but it would seem no order was then made to remove the body of the defendant to that county. A transcript having been filed in the court to which the cause had been removed, the defendant by his attorney appeared there and moved the court to strike the cause from the docket; the motion was overruled. The St. Louis county circuit court, at next term after the venue was changed, ordered the defendant to be delivered to the jailer of St. Charles county, which was done. The cause coming on for hearing in that court, the defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction and also challenged the array of petit jurors-; the plea and motion were both overruled, and defendant refusing to plead, a plea of not guilty was entered, and upon a trial lie was found guilty.

1. Tbe petition, for a change of venue was based upon two grounds, prejudice of the inhabitants of St. Louis county, and prejudice of the inhabitants of the entire nineteenth judicial circuit, of which St. Charles county is also a part. The claim is that the motion was sustained in its entirety, and that, therefore, the St. Charles circuit court acquired no jurisdiction. But this is a misconception of the record. The order recites that there was good cause for granting the motion because of prejudice of the inhabitants of St. Louis county, and then it is adj udged that the motion be sustained and the venue of the cause changed to the county of St. Charles, and the clerk is directed to forward a transcript of the proceedings to the circuit court of that county. The plain and only effect of the order was to sustain the application as to St. Louis county, and to overrule it, as to the entire circuit. How else could the cause have been removed to St. Charles county? The order is not susceptible of any other meaning. The St. Louis county circuit court should have ordered the body of the defendant removed, when the change of venue was awarded. Sec. 1867, R. S. But a failure to then make the order did not deprive that court of the power to thereafter make it. It was the plain duty of the court to direct the sheriff to remove the defendant to the jail of St. Charles county, even at a subsequent term. The St. Charles circuit court had full and complete jurisdiction when the cause was brought on for trial, and the previous irregularities gave the defendant no right to be discharged. ,

2. The objection to the jurors seems to have been that they were not of the standing jurors selected by thecounty court. The bill of exceptions concedes that there was no record entry showing that the.regular, jurors for that term had been discharged. It will be taken.as a fact that the court had a panel of regular jurors at that term and that they had not been discharged. Still it does not. appear but they were engaged in the consideration of other causes. The statute with respect to selecting jurors has always been regarded as directory. State v. Pitts, 58 Mo. 556 ; State v. Knight, 81 Mo. 373 ; State v. Ward, 74 Mo. 256. The trial court has a right to order its officers to- bring in additional jurors, or an entire new panel, as the dispatch of the business may demand.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.