People ex rel. Stabile v. Warden

In England, during the reign of Edward III, vigorous means ¡were resorted to for the purpose of compelling unanimity

By the Revised Statutes of 1829 it was provided: “Attaints upon untrue verdicts are abolished; and for any verdict rendered by him, no juror shall be questioned, or be subject to any .action or proceeding, civil or criminal, except to indictment for corrupt conduct in rendering such verdict, in the' cases prescribed by law.” (2 R. S., part. 3, ch. 7, title 4, art. 4, sec. 69.)

Early in the last century Mr. Justice Kent in People v. Olcott (supra), referring to the common-law rule and reviewing at length many of the cases that had been decided prior to that time, said: “ The doctrine of compelling a jury to unanimity, by the pains of hunger and fatigue, so that the verdict, in fact, be founded not on temperate discussion, and clear conviction, but on strength of body, is a monstrous doctrine, that

Growing out of the common-law rule that we have stated, it was, by Lord -Coke, asserted that a jury sworn and charged in a criminal case could not be discharged until they had rendered a verdict.

In the case of People v. Olcott (supra), Justice Kent reviews the authorities to sustain the claim that a court has no power to discharge a jury in a criminal case until they have agreed upon a verdict, and concludes that the power to discharge a jury in certain cases before they render a verdict exists. In the old Olcott case the defendants were indicted for a misdemeanor and Justice Kent left a possible doubt as to the rule stated by him being applicable to capital cases by saying: “ If the question in capital cases be doubtful, there is nothing to render it so in cases of misdemeanor.” (Page 307.) Long before the adoption of our Code of Criminal Procedure in 1881 it became the settled rule in this state that the discharge of a jury in all cases rests in the sound discretion of the court. (People v. Denton, 2 Johnson’s Cases, 275; People v. Olcott, supra; People v. Goodwin, 18 Johnson, 187; People v. Green, 13 Wendel, 55; Grant v. People, 4 Parker’s Criminal Reports, 527.)

The right to discharge a jury in all cases was asserted by Spencer, J., in People v. Goodwin (supra), and he, at the same time, formulated a rule to be followed in the exercise of such discretion. We quote from the opinion in that case: “ Upon full consideration, I am of opinion, that although the power of discharging a jury is a delicate, and highly import a

Under the rule established the safeguard of the public and of persons charged with crime against an improper discharge of a jury rested in the good judgment and integrity of the judges. Prior to the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure it is asserted that in one or more cases in this state a jury had been discharged without the exercise of that good judgment which is usually manifested in all matters resting in the discretion of the courts. It is also asserted that the criticisms arising therefrom resulted in the insertion in the Code of Criminal Procedure of section 428, which asserts, defines and limits the discretion resting in the courts relating to the discharge of a jury before it has arrived at a verdict. Said section 428 reads as follows: “ When jury to be discharged before agreement.— After the jury have retired to consider of their verdict, they can be discharged before they shall have agreed thereon only in the following cases:

“ 1. Upon the occurrence of some injury or casualty affecting the defendant, the jury or some one of them, or the court, rendering it inexpedient to keep them longer together; or,

“ 2. When after the lapse of such time as shall seem reasonable to the court, they shall declare themselves unable to agree upon a verdict; or,

“ 3. When, with the leave of the court, the public prosecutor and the counsel for the defendant consent to such discharge.”

There was no opportunity given the defendant or his counsel to consider the contemplated action of the trial judge when he called the jury before him. He did not indicate in any way in advance what action he was going to take. The discharge of the jury was precipitate and arbitrary and it would appear to have been a surprise not only to the jury but to the counsel engaged in the trial of the case. The right to discharge the jury does not come within the third subdivision of said section.

The discharge of the jury necessarily rests upon the statutory authority contained in the second subdivision of said section. The right was, therefore, dependent upon the jury having declared themselves unable to agree upon a verdict. The jury did not declare themselves unable to agree upon a verdict either in terms or by any fair inference. They were in the midst of their deliberations upon the case when, without a suggestion from them, and without the defendant or his counsel being informed of the purpose thereof, the judge presiding at the trial arbitrarily directed them to come before him. Upon their appearance before him they were not asked whether they were able to agree upon a verdict, but as to whether they had in fact agreed, in language as follows: “ Mr. Foreman, have you agreed upon a verdict ? ” If the jury had responded through their foreman by a simple negative, it could not by any fair construction be said to have been a declaration of inability to agree. The answer in this case, however, includes much more than a simple negative. When the foreman said in answer to the question by the trial judge, “ Hot as yet,” he clearly indicated that the jurymen had not completed their discussion and deliberation in an effort to reach a verdict and that they were in the midst of such discussion and deliberation.

From the plain language of the statute itself it appears that it was not the intention of the legislature to permit the court to exercise discretion in discharging a jury at any point of time prior to a declaration by them of their inability to agree. If the statute means that the court has the right in its discretion to discharge a jury at any time before it has agreed, then the last clause of subdivision 2 of the section quoted is meaningless. If it had been the intention of the legislature to leave it for the court to say that the jury were unable to agree without a statement from them relating thereto, it would have passed a statute similar to the one now existing in the State of California. The Penal Code of California provides: “ Section 1139 : If, after the retirement of the jury, one of them be taken.

Under such a statute a reasonable discretion at all times rests in the court to determine whether “ it satisfactorily appears-that there is no reasonable probability that the jury can agree.” We repeat that our statute is plain. Any other words attempting to construe it lead to confusion and not to clearness. It was-intended to take away the unqualified discretion that had theretofore existed in the courts in regard to discharging a jury and make the discretion of the courts dependent upon a prior declaration by the jury of their ability or inability to agree. A declaration even by a minority of the jurors that in their' opinion a further deliberation by them would lead to an agreement would under our statute require the court to send the-, jury back for such further deliberation. The jury in this case were improperly discharged without determining the relator’s:, guilt or innocence.

It is a fundamental principle of common law as well as a right guaranteed by Constitution that a person shall not for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. (People v. Goodwin, supra.)

It is provided by the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States that a person shall not “ Be subject-for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”

It is provided in our State Constitution (article 1, sec-

Where a person charged with crime has been once duly acquitted or convicted before a court of competent jurisdiction, he can plead such acquittal or conviction in bar to any further prosecution for such crime.

Under our Code of Criminal Procedure a judgment of conviction or aequital of the crime charged is necessary to constitute a good plea. (Code of Criminal Procedure section 332.)

If a person accused of crime is placed upon trial therefor "upon an indictment duly found and sufficient in form and he pleads thereto and proceeds with the trial before a jury duly sworn to try the issues so joined, he is placed in jeopardy within the constitutional provisions. There are many things that may occur during a trial which will for reasons stated by the courts permit of the discharge of a jury before rendering a verdict with or without the consent of the defendant and leave the defendant subject to a trial before a new jury as though the first jury had never been impaneled and sworn.

If the jury is discharged without the defendant’s consent merely because the public prosecutor is not prepared with his evidence, the defendant is entitled to his discharge because he has once been put in jeopardy within the constitutional provisions. (People v. Barrett, 2 Caine’s Pep. 304; Grant v. People, 4 Park. Crim. Rep. 527 ; Klock v. People, 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 676 .)

Where a jury is arbitrarily discharged in a criminal case without the consent of the defendant, and no circumstances exist calling for or permitting the exercise of a discretion by "the court, the defendant has by reason of the trial that thus -comes to a sudden end been placed in jeopardy within the constitutional provision, and such discharge is a reason within the Constitution why the defendant should not be again brought

There remains but one other question for consideration and’ that is whether the relator’s right to a discharge can be determined in this proceeding. Although the discharge of the jury was not in form an acquittal of the defendant, it was in effect such an acquittal. It was not, however, a judgment of acquittal within the express provisions of section 332 of the Code of Criminal Procedure restricting and enumerating the pleas that may be interposed to an indictment by a defendant. A former conviction or acquittal which may be pleaded in bar is a conviction or acquittal on the merits. (People v. Smith, 172 N. Y. 210 , 227, 17 N. Y. Crim. 39 ; People v. Goodwin, supra.) It is not important to consider the relator’s chances of being discharged if he should move in the Court of General Sessions for an order for his discharge upon the ground that he has been once placed in jeopardy.

The relator’s claim to a discharge was substantially decided against him when he was remanded to the custody of the defendant. There is no appeal from the direction of the court given at the time that the defendant was remanded, and there would be no appeal from an order of the Court of General Sessions denying a further application for a discharge. The only appeal allowed to a defendant in a criminal case is from, a judgment of conviction after indictment. (Code Criminal Procedure, section 517.) He cannot move in arrest of judgment, for there is no prospective judgment to arrest. Assuming-that he could assert his claim by a subsequent plea to the t indictment or by a motion in arrest of judgment in case of

A person imprisoned or restrained in his liberty within the . state for any cause is entitled, except in one of the cases specified in section 2016 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the imprisonment or restraint. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 2015.) If it appears that the prisoner is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained in his liberty the court or judge must make a final order discharging him forthwith. (Code of Civil Procedure, section 2043.)

This court held in People ex rel. Collins v. McLaughlin ( 194 N. Y. 556 ) that “ Except in rare cases where the facts before the court cannot be materially changed, qualified or explained the determination of important issues ought not to be made in a habeas corpus proceeding.” Page 557.) In that case the court referred to and quoted from the-United States Supreme Court, with approval, as follows: “ The Supreme Court of the United States has recently announced its adherence to this doctrine.” In Riggins v. United States ( 199 U. S. 547 , 548) Mr. Chief Justice Fuller states: “ Ordinarily the writ will not be granted when there is a remedy by writ of error or appeal, yet in rare and exceptional cases it may be issued, although such remedy exists.”

In this case the right to discharge the jury does not rest upon a question of fact. The facts are conceded and the authority of the presiding judge at the trial depended solely upon & question of law. He had no discretion to exercise because

This is distinguishable from People ex rel. Scharff v. Frost ( 198 N. Y. 110 ). In that case the relator was held by virtue of a judgment. The court had jurisdiction of the relator and of the crime of which he was charged and the reason why the relator therein claimed that he was entitled to a discharge: rested upon the determination of a question of fact in connection with the construction of a statute. If the relator therein had availed himself of a motion in arrest of judgment he would have had an adequate opportunity to review the action of the trial court in granting the judgment against him.

As we have already shown in this case no adequate remedy has existed or now exists for the protection of the relator.

The order should be affirmed.

I vote for the reversal of the order appealed from. Though originally the common law was different, it became the settled law of this state, prior to the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the time at which a jury, which after consideration of a case had been unable to agree upon a verdict, was to be;

Vann, Werner and Willard Bartlett, JJ., concur with Ohase, J.; Hiscock, J., concurs with Cullen, Oh. J.; Haight, J., absent.

Order affirmed.

NOTE ON DISCHARGE OF JURY BEFORE VERDICT AS EFFECTING FORMER JEOPARDY.

GENERALLY.

At English Common Law, whenever any evidence whatever had been given, the jury could not be discharged, unless in cases of the utmost necessity, until a verdict had been rendered. Poster Crown L. 27.

A manifest necessity for the discharge of the jury must exist, and it is left to the courts in their discretion to decide whether such necessity exists under the circumstances of each particular case. Canter v. People, 1 Abb. Dec. 305.

Where the jury is discharged for a reason insufficient in law and without an absolute necessity for it existing, such discharge is held to be equivalent to an acquittal, and it may be pleaded in bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. King v. People, 5 Hun, 297 .

The discharge of a jury, in a criminal case, without agreeing on a verdict, is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the court in which the trial is had; it seems that the power of the court should be exercised with the greatest caution. People v. Green, 13 Wend. 57 .

The courts are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is

DEFECTIVE INDICTMENT.

If it is discovered on the trial that the offense is charged as of a date subsequent to the indictment, the jury may be discharged, and it is not an acquittal. Johnson’s Cas., 5 City Hall Rec. (N. Y.) 103.

FAILURE OF JURY TO AGREE.

The discharge of the jury, after full consideration of the case and a failure on their part to agree, and there being no reasonable expectation that they will come to an agreement, held not to effect a bar to another trial, this holding being placed on the ground that such a condition of affairs constitutes urgent and absolute necessity, and justifies the court in ordering the discharge of the jury. People v. Olcott, 2 Johns. Cas. 275 .

If the jury after deliberating so long on the prisoner’s case as to preclude a reasonable expectation that they will agree upon a verdict unless compelled to do so by famine or exhaustion, they may be discharged, and the prisoner again tried by another jury. People v. Goodwin, 18 Johns. 187 .

JUDGE’S 'ILLNESS.

Where illness of judge causes discharge of jury after latter has been impanelled and sworn, the accused cannot plead former jeopardy. Nugent v. State, 4 Stew & P. (Ala.) 72.

Where, after a trial was begun, it was so continued from day to day and other eases were disposed of, and on the adjourned day the jury was discharged on account of the illness of the presiding judge, the discharge amounted to an acquittal and was a bar to a subsequent trial. Ex parte Ulrich, 42 Fed., 587 .

JUROR’S DISQUALIFICATION.

Where the jury is discharged after the beginning of the trial because of . the disqualification of a juror there is neither an acquittal ndr former jeopardy, even though the defendant offers' to waive such disqualification

The discharge of the jury after arraignment, but before any evidence has been received, because of the disqualification of the jurors, and the subsequent impanelling of a new jury, does not entitle the accused to plead former jeopardy. Watkins v. State, 60 Ga. 601 .

JUROR’S ILLNESS.

Where a juror’s statement as to his illness is not made under oath and no medical evidence is heard on the subject, a discharge is held to be improper, and a bar to a subsequent indictment and trial. Rulo v. State, 19 Ind. 298 .

The discharge of the jury and the postponement of the trial in a criminal action because of the illness of one of the jurors incapacitating him from performing his duties is authorized, and a plea of former jeopardy cannot be based upon such discharge and postponement. People v. Smith, 172 N. Y. 210 .

SEPARATION OF JURY.

Where, after the jury has retired, they separate, they may be discharged and a new jury sworn. People v. Reagle, 60 Barb. 527 .

Where, with the consent of the accused, the jury is permitted to separate before they retire to consider their verdict, and on reassembling it is found that one of them is missing, and the jury is thereupon discharged for such cause, the defendant may subsequently plead former jeopardy. State v. Ward, 48 Ark. 86 .

Where the jury was discharged on motion of the State because they had eeparated after being sworn, but before evidence had been taken, the defendant might be subsequently tried for the same offense. State v. Costello, 11 La. Ann. 283 .

WHEN ACCUSED ABSENT.

The accused having a right to be present during the entire trial, an acquittal is worked by the discharge of the jury in his absence, for whatever cause. State v. White, 19 Kan. 445 .

But if the absence of the accused is caused by his flight during the progress of the trial, the jury may then be discharged, and he may be subsequently reindicted. State v. Battle, 7 Ala. 259 .

"WITNESS’S ABSENCE.

Where defendant has pleaded, and the district attorney finds himself unprepared with evidence, owing to the absence of a material witness, and therefore withdraws a juror against the objections of the defendant, the latter cannot be again tried. People v. Barrett, 2 Cal. (N. Y.) 304.

The rule is based sometimes on the fact that the accused has been in jeopardy, and sometimes on his right to a speedy trial, but it is a sound rule that the discharge of the jury under such circumstances operates asi san acquittal. Klock v. People, 2 Park. Crim. 876.