HARRISON v. UNITED STATES

Supreme Court of the United States1896-05-18No. No. 294

163 U.S. 14016 S. Ct. 96141 L. Ed. 1041896 U.S. LEXIS 2253SCDB 1895-227

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded with instructions to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial, because the trial court erroneously limited the defendant's peremptory challenges to three when he was entitled to ten as a defendant charged with the felony of robbery.

A defendant was convicted of robbing a mail carrier and sentenced to life imprisonment under a federal statute that imposes such a sentence when the robber uses dangerous weapons or puts the carrier's life in jeopardy. During jury selection, the defendant attempted to exercise peremptory challenges against five potential jurors, but the trial court ruled that he was entitled to only three peremptory challenges—the number applicable to general felonies. The court overruled the fourth and fifth challenges, and those jurors participated in the trial.

The defendant's counsel conceded that robbery is a felony under common law and that the statute used the term in its traditional sense. Under the applicable statute governing peremptory challenges, a defendant charged with any felony is entitled to ten peremptory challenges. Because the trial court improperly limited the defendant to three challenges, five unauthorized jurors participated in his conviction. This error required reversal regardless of any other trial issues.

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

Key issues

Whether robbery constitutes a felony under the Revised Statutes
Number of peremptory challenges permissible to a defendant in a felony prosecution
Whether improper limitation of peremptory challenges requires reversal

Procedural posture

The defendant was convicted at trial and sentenced to life imprisonment; he appealed the conviction and assigned errors regarding the trial court's restriction of his peremptory challenges during jury selection.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

As stated by counsel for the United States, plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under an indictment for robbing a mail carrier of the United States of a registered mail package, which charged that in effecting such robbery he put in jeopardy the life of the carrier by the use of dangerous weapons; and was based on the following section of the Revised Statutes:

“ Sec. 5472. Any person who shall rob any carrier, agent- or other person intrusted with the mail, of such mail, or any part thereof, shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years and not more than ten years;. and if convicted a second time of a like offence, or if, in effecting such robbery the first time, the robber shall wound the person having custody of the mail, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, such offender shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for the term of his natural life.”

In the course of impanelling the jury, plaintiff in error challenged three persons peremptorily, and afterwards challenged one Harris peremptorily, but the court held that he was entitled to only three peremptory challenges, which he had exhausted, and overruled the challenge, to which action of the court an exception was duly taken. Harris was then sworn on the jury and sat as a member thereof on the trial. Four other persons were likewise separately challenged peremptorily, the challenges overruled, exceptions taken, and they served on the jury.

If plaintiff in error was entitled to ten peremptory challenges, five persons unlawfully took part as jurors in his conviction. Section 819 of the Revised Statutes provides:

“ "When the offence charged is treason or a capital offence,, the defendant shall be entitled to twenty and the United States to five peremptory challenges. On the trial of any other felony, the defendant shall be entitled to ten Mid the United States to three peremptory challenges; and in all other cases, civil and criminal, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges; and in all cases where there are several defendants or several plaintiffs, the parties on each side shall be deemed a single party for the purposes of all challenges under this section. All challenges, whether to the array or panel, or to individual jurors for cause or favor, shall be tried by the court without the aid of triers.”

Counsel concedes that at common law “ robbery ” was a felony and that the word “ rob ” in the statute was used in its common law sense, and, therefore, admits that the errors assigned in respect of the action of the court in overruling these •challenges are well taken. W e concur in this view.

Other rulings of the court are questioned in the brief of plaintiff in error, but it is quite improbable that they will occur on another trial and we need not pass upon them.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with a direction to set aside the verdict and gra/nt a new trial.