Supreme Court of the United States, 1896

Harrison v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 18, 1896 · Fuller

163 U.S. 140; 16 S. Ct. 961; 41 L. Ed. 104; 1896 U.S. LEXIS 2253 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. R. B. Kelly for plaintiff in error. Mr. John F. Methvin was on his brief., Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson, for defendants in error, submitted on his brief.

Cases that cite this one

45 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States v. Richard Annigoni (9th Cir. 1996)
Commonwealth v. Ingber (Pa. 1987)
United States v. Eugene Leslie (5th Cir. 1986)
Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (3d Cir. 1995)
Kirk v. Raymark Industries, Inc. (3d Cir. 1995)
United States v. William Underwood, Paul Messino, Christopher B. Messino, Christopher Richard Messino, and Clement Messino (7th Cir. 1997)
Martha Dunham and Preston Dunham v. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc. (7th Cir. 1990)
United States v. Eugene Leslie (5th Cir. 1985)
State v. Barnville (R.I. 1982)
Leroy McCoy and Ladie Byrd Crawford v. Arthur B. Goldston, Jr., Richard Papciak and the City of Detroit Policedepartment (6th Cir. 1981)
United States v. Antonio Gaudino Vargas (1st Cir. 1979)
Chinnery v. People (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands 2011)
State v. Wyss (Wis. 1985)
SHANNON & LUCHS MGT. CO., INC. v. Roberts (D.C. 1982)
Swain v. Alabama (Supreme Court of the United States 1965)
Campbell v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)
Campbell v. State (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2019)
Com. v. Frawley, L. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014)
State v. Reiners (Minn. Ct. App. 2002)
State v. Rivera (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Rivera (Wash. Ct. App. 2001)
State v. Evans (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)
State v. Evans (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)
United States v. Richard Annigoni (9th Cir. 1996)
United States v. Dennis Rodriguez (7th Cir. 1991)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

*141 Me. Chief Justice Fullee

delivered the opinion of the court.

As stated by counsel for the United States, plaintiff in error was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under an indictment for robbing a mail carrier of the United States of a registered mail package, which charged that in effecting such robbery he put in jeopardy the life of the carrier by the use of dangerous weapons; and was based on the following section of the Revised Statutes:

“ Sec. 5472. Any person who shall rob any carrier, agent- or other person intrusted with the mail, of such mail, or any part thereof, shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for not less than five years and not more than ten years;. and if convicted a second time of a like offence, or if, in effecting such robbery the first time, the robber shall wound the person having custody of the mail, or put his life in jeopardy by the use of dangerous weapons, such offender shall be punishable by imprisonment at hard labor for the term of his natural life.”

In the course of impanelling the jury, plaintiff in error challenged three persons peremptorily, and afterwards challenged one Harris peremptorily, but the court held that he was entitled to only three peremptory challenges, which he had exhausted, and overruled the challenge, to which action of the court an exception was duly taken. Harris was then sworn on the jury and sat as a member thereof on the trial. Four other persons were likewise separately challenged peremptorily, the challenges overruled, exceptions taken, and they served on the jury.

If plaintiff in error was entitled to ten peremptory challenges, five persons unlawfully took part as jurors in his conviction. Section 819 of the Revised Statutes provides:

“ "When the offence charged is treason or a capital offence,, the defendant shall be entitled to twenty and the United States to five peremptory challenges. On the trial of any other felony, the defendant shall be entitled to ten Mid the United States to three peremptory challenges; and in all *142 other cases, civil and criminal, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges; and in all cases where there are several defendants or several plaintiffs, the parties on each side shall be deemed a single party for the purposes of all challenges under this section. All challenges, whether to the array or panel, or to individual jurors for cause or favor, shall be tried by the court without the aid of triers.”

Counsel concedes that at common law “ robbery ” was a felony and that the word “ rob ” in the statute was used in its common law sense, and, therefore, admits that the errors assigned in respect of the action of the court in overruling these •challenges are well taken. W e concur in this view.

Other rulings of the court are questioned in the brief of plaintiff in error, but it is quite improbable that they will occur on another trial and we need not pass upon them.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with a direction to set aside the verdict and gra/nt a new trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.