Balfe v. People

Supreme Court of Colorado

Balfe v. People

64 Colo. 28

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedSeptember 15, 1917

DocketNo. 9220

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 64 Colo. 28 (Balfe v. People) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Balfe v. People, 64 Colo. 28 (Colo. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Chief Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court:

In impaneling the jury in this case, each side was entitled to three peremptory challenges. The prosecution exercised one such challenge, and, upon filling the panel, the defendant was called upon to challenge and passed. This was repeated until the prosecution had exercised its third challenge. A new juror, was then called, qualified and excused upon the challenge of defendant. Another juror was called and qualified. The defendant then challenged this juror, and the court denied the right of defendant to do so. The defendant was entitled to the challenge he attempted to exercise, and the action of the court in the premises deprived him of a substantial right. Moore v. The People, 31 Colo. 336, 73 Pac. 30. This the Attorney General very properly concedes. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Decision En banc.

Judgment reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chief Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court:

In impaneling the jury in this case, each side was entitled to three peremptory challenges. The prosecution exercised one such challenge, and, upon filling the panel, the defendant was called upon to challenge and passed. This was repeated until the prosecution had exercised its third challenge. A new juror, was then called, qualified and excused upon the challenge of defendant. Another juror was called and qualified. The defendant then challenged this juror, and the court denied the right of defendant to do so. The defendant was entitled to the challenge he attempted to exercise, and the action of the court in the premises deprived him of a substantial right. Moore v. The People, 31 Colo. 336, 73 Pac. 30. This the Attorney General very properly concedes. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Decision En banc.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Colo. 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balfe-v-people-colo-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack