State v. Neuner
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Indictment for rape; in the Superior Court. Tried to the jury before Park, C. J. Verdict guilty, and motion for a new trial for error in a ruling of the. court with regard to the defendant’s right of peremptory challenge. The case is fully stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLoomis, J.
Upon the impaneling of the jury for the. trial of the defendant for the crime of rape, he claimed the right to peremptorily challenge ten jurors; but the court denied his claim and allowed him to challenge only four. Was this ruling correct?- The answer depends on the *233proper construction of section five, p. 538, of the General Statutes, Revision of 1875, which provides that—“The accused may challenge peremptorily, when arraigned before the Superior Court for any offence punishable by death, twenty jurors; for any offence punishable by imprisonment for life, ten jurors; for any offence the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ticknor v. McClellandIllinois Supreme Court · 1877
- Commonwealth v. PembertonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Kane v. FoothIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
- Commonwealth v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Dull v. PeopleNew York Supreme Court · 1847
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Foote v. BartholomewSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
- State v. McGeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1908
- Bassett v. City Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Stapleberg v. StaplebergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1904
- Duffield v. PikeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1899
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.