Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Conner v. State

Supreme Court of Arizona

July 10, 1939

FRANK CONNER, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Santa Cruz. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Galbraith A. Little, Mr. Nasib Karam and Mr. Lemuel P. Mathews, for Appellant.

Mr. Joe Conway, Attorney General, and Mr. Albert M. Garcia, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

OPINION

[54 Ariz. 69] LOCKWOOD, J.

Frank Conner, hereinafter called defendant, was informed against for the crime of murder in the first degree. He was tried before a jury which found him guilty and fixed the penalty at death, and his appeal is now before us.

There are but two assignments of error. One of them goes to the refusal of the court to allow a challenge for cause to A. L. Peck, who was called as a juror in the case, and the other is based on the alleged failure of M. I. Davis, another juror, to answer truly concerning his qualifications. Section 5035, Revised Code of 1928, gives the grounds of challenges for jurors in criminal cases. Among these are the following:

"5. standing in the relation of guardian and ward, attorney and client, master and servant,

Page 525

or landlord and tenant, or being a member of the family of the defendant, or of the person alleged to be injured by the offense charged or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, or in his employment on wages;... 13. for the existence of a state of mind on the part of the juror in reference to the case or to the defendant or to the person alleged to have been injured by the offense charged, or on whose complaint the prosecution was instituted, which will prevent him from acting with entire impartiality and without prejudice to the substantial rights of either party."

The juror Davis was asked on his voir dire:

"Q. Are you acquainted with any of the attorneys for the State? A. I know all of them casually.

"Q. You have no business pending with them? A. Not at present.

"Q. Did you have any business with any of them? A. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.