Raganthall v. Commonwealth
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 5 — INDICTMENT FOR TRESPASS APPEAL FROM KENTON CRIMINAL COURT. 1. Grand jurymen are required tobe citizens and housekeepers. (Sec. 1, art. 1, chap. 62, Gen. Stat.) 2. A grand juryman is a competent witness to prove that he was not a citizen, and therefore was not a competent grand juryman. (Civil Code, secs. 605, 606; Crim.
Read the full summary
Case 5 — INDICTMENT FOR TRESPASS APPEAL FROM KENTON CRIMINAL COURT. 1. Grand jurymen are required tobe citizens and housekeepers. (Sec. 1, art. 1, chap. 62, Gen. Stat.) 2. A grand juryman is a competent witness to prove that he was not a citizen, and therefore was not a competent grand juryman. (Civil Code, secs. 605, 606; Crim. Code, secs. 112,113.) After the indictment was found it was too late to introduce a grand juryman to prove that he was not competent at the time of the finding of the indictment. (See Commonwealth v. Skeggs, 3 Bush, 19.)
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE ELLIOTT
delivered the opinion of the court.
On the trial of this indictment for trespass to realty the appellant appeared, and, before any plea by him, moved to quash the indictment because one John Schneider was a member of the grand jury which found the indictment against him, and was not at the time he composed a part of the grand jury a citizen of this state or the United States, but instead thereof was at that time a citizen of and owing allegiance to the empire of Germany.
*458On his motion, appellant introduced John Schneider, the grand juror, and offered to prove by him that he was…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Lee v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925