State v. Browne
Idaho Supreme Court
WRIT of error from District Court, Latah County. Section 7848: After the jury is passed for cause, both parties alternately, beginning with the people, may take their peremptory challenges. But no challenge is lost by failure to alternate if the panel is opened by the other party: and each party is entitled to a full panel before exercising a peremptory challenge.
Read the full summary
WRIT of error from District Court, Latah County. Section 7848: After the jury is passed for cause, both parties alternately, beginning with the people, may take their peremptory challenges. But no challenge is lost by failure to alternate if the panel is opened by the other party: and each party is entitled to a full panel before exercising a peremptory challenge. It was contended by the district attorney in behalf of the people that to alternate, within the meaning' of that statute, and withira the general practice adopted in this state, meant that the state should exorcise one challenge,…
1Opinion of the CourtHuston, J.
The defendant in error, Browne, was jointly indicted with one John Gilstrap and one Isaac C. Hattabaugh for violating the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 6975 of the Revised Statutes of Idaho. Said section provides, inter alia: “F;ach officer of this territory [state], or of any county, city, town or district of this territory [state], and every other person charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer or disbursement of public moneys, who .... [subdivision 4] deposits the same or any poation thereof in any bank or with any baoiker or other person, otherwise than on special deposit,…
2Cited by11 opinions
- State v. TaylorIdaho Supreme Court · 1939
- State v. CasedayOregon Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. BaldwinIdaho Supreme Court · 1949
- State v. CochraneIdaho Supreme Court · 1931
- State v. HenzellIdaho Supreme Court · 1910
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.