Cottle

People v. Cottle

Caution
1856 Cal. LEXIS 103·6 Cal. 227
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 1, 1856California391 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Murray, J.

Mr. Justice Terry concurred.

On the trial of this cause in the Court below, one of the jurors stated *228 that “ he had expressed an opinion in the ease which was dependent upon what he had heard at the time he so expressed it, and that at the time he so expressed it, he expressed no qualification.”

The statute of this State provides, that having formed or expressed an unqualified opinion, as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, shall be a ground of challenge.

It is argued by the Attorney General, that there is a difference between expressing an unqualified opinion, and the unqualified expression of an opinion; and so there is, if we'resort to a verbal criticism, or mere metaphysical disquisition. It was not the intention of the Legislature to leave the rights of parties to rest upon so narrow and dangerous a foundation; their obvious intention was, to exclude from the jury box every one who had either formed an unqualified opinion, or having formed an opinion, had expressed it without qualification.

We are necessarily led to this conclusion, because, we are bound to presume that the Legislature had some settled design on this subject, and employed terms supposed to be…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.