State v. Carter
| Decision Date | 06 February 1922 |
| Parties | STATE v. CARTER. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Waldo County, at Law.
Homer B. Carter was found guilty of the illegal possession of intoxicating liquors, and he brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and judgment directed on the verdict.
Argued before SPEAR, HANSON, PHILBROOK. MORRILL, and WILSON, JJ.
Ralph I. Morse, of Belfast, for the State.
Buzzell & Thornton, of Belfast for respondent.
The defendant was found guilty of illegally having in possession intoxicating liquors on complaint to the judge of the municipal ocurt for the city of Belfast, and on appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court upon trial before a jury was again found guilty. Just at the close of the trial, and as the presiding justice was concluding his instructions to the jury, another jury, which we shall hereafter refer to as the second jury, indicated their readiness to report the result of their deliberations in another criminal proceeding. Whereupon the jury in the case now before us vacated their scats, but remained in the courtroom, while the second panel took the jury seats and in the case which had been submitted to them reported a verdict of "Not guilty."
The presiding justice in discharging them spoke disapprovingly of their work as jurymen, clearly indicating that in his opinion their verdict of acquittal was unwarranted. To his remarks directed to the second jury, but, as it is claimed, within the hearing of the jury having in charge the case against this respondent, counsel for the respondent requested an exception, which was allowed.
He also filed with the presiding justice a motion for a new trial, alleging as one of the grounds that an incident which took place in the presence of the jurors in this action, and the language and manner of the presiding justice at the time a verdict of "Not guilty" was rendered by another jury in another criminal proceeding, was of such a nature as to prejudice and bias the minds of the jury in the case against the respondent. His motion for a new trial was denied by the presiding justice and the time within which exceptions might be filed extended. Whether any exceptions were ever filed to the ruling of the court in denying the motion the record before this court does not show. Nor is it material, as no exceptions lie in such cases.
At common law a decision by the presiding justice at nisi prius on a motion for a new trial was final. Moulton v. Jose...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mottram
...The error complained of is reached by a motion for new trial and not by exceptions. State v. Martel, 103 Me. 63, 68 A. 454; State v. Carter, 121 Me. 116, 115 A. 820. We have, however, considered the issue as properly raised and conclude there has been no error warranting a new trial. The re......
-
Robb v. Quaker City Cab Co.
...Phonograph Co., 274 Pa. 236, 117 A. 790; Eckert v. Merchants' Shipbuilding Corp., 280 Pa. 340, 124 A. 477; Mooney v. Kinder, 271 Pa. 485, 115 A. 820; Silberstein v. Showell, F. & Co., 267 Pa. 298, 109 A. 701; Anderson v. Wood, 264 Pa. 98, 107 A. 658; McClung v. Penna. T. Cab Co., 252 Pa. 47......
-
State v. Dodge
...him. His decision thereon was final, and not subject to review. Moulton v. Jose, 25 Me. 76, 85; State v. Hill, 48 Me. 241; State v. Carter, 121 Me. 116, 115 A. 820. In 1841 (R. S. c. 115, § 101) it was provided that motions for a new trial might be presented to the whole court upon a report......
-
Labbe v. Cyr
...State v. Howard, 117 Me. 69, 102 A. 743; State v. Sanborn, 120 Me. 170, 113 A. 54; State v. Dodge, 124 Me. 243, 127 A. 899; State v. Carter, 121 Me. 116, 115 A. 820; State v. Morin, 131 Me. 349, 163 A. 102; State v. Dorathy, 132 Me. 291, 170 A. The evidence discloses that defendant entered ......