Roberts v. The State Of Ga.
| Decision Date | 31 August 1853 |
| Docket Number | No. 4.,4. |
| Citation | 14 Ga. 18 |
| Parties | Ezekiel A. Roberts, plaintiff in error. vs. The State of Georgia, defendant. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Indictment for being a rogue and vagabond, in Monroe Superior Court. Tried before Judge Starke, March Term, 1853.
The facts in this case are as follows: The defendant being indicted, and having plead, and being put upon his trial, during the progress of the cause, a witness of the State, named Simpson, being on the stand, and having been cross-examined by defendant's counsel, the defendant himself asked leave to cross-examine him further, which the Court refused, and which is excepted to.
The case having been submitted to the jury, they retired to consider it. When they returned into Court, the list was called by the Clerk, and each juror answered to his name. They then handed in the following verdict: ''We, the jury, find Ezekiel A. Roberts guilty." Not signed by any one. The indictment, with the verdict, was handed to prisoner's counsel, who were asked if they wished to poll the jury, and answered in the negative. The jury were then discharged and the verdict recorded.
Motions were then made, first in arrest of judgment, and afterwards for a new trial, on the ground, that no verdict had been rendered; and for a new trial, also, on the ground of error in the Court in refusing to permit the prisoner to cross-examine the witness, Simpson. Both which motions were overruled by the Court, to which defendant excepts and assigns error therein.
Lamar, Hammond & Lochrane, for plaintiff in error.
Glenn, representing Thrasher, Sol. Gen., for defendant.
By the Court.—Nisbet, J., delivering opinion.
The grounds relied upon in this bill are not sufficient, either to arrest the judgment, or for a new trial. We have no Statute Law, prescribing the form of delivering the verdict of a jury. Our usage is to write the verdict on the indictment— which being signed by the foreman, is handed to the Sol. General in open Court after the jury has been called; and when publicly read, is recorded. This form is in substance that of the Criminal Law, and we cannot advise any departure from it. Yet, when in substance and effect it is observed, even if there be a literal departure, we will not regard that as warranting a new trial, much less an arrest of judgment. In England the verdict is given in orally. The oral tradition grew out of the unclerkly character of jurors in early times. And now we see no objection to it, inasmuch as it is happily adapted to the free and uncontrolled expression of the mind of the jury, and affords, by reason of its openness and audibility, safe guarantees against conception in any form, or from any quarter. The Clerk then receives the verdict from the lips of the foreman and records it—being recorded, it is read to the jury and their assent invoked, and when that is given it stands. The form of procedure is as follows: The. jury having returned into their box, the Clerk calls the jury each by his name, and then asks them whether they have agreed ontheir verdict, to which they reply (if the fact be so) in the affirmative. He then demands who shall say for them, to which they answer, their foreman. This being done, he desires the prisoner to hold up his hand, and addresses the jury thus: "look upon the prisoner, you that are sworn; how say you; is he guilty of the felony whereof he stands indicted, or is he not guilty?" He then writes the word guilty or not guilty, as the verdict is, after the words "po se" on the record, and again addresses the jury thus: "hearken to your verdict as the Court hath recorded it; you say that A. B. is guilty (or not guilty) of the felony whereof he stands indicted, and so say you all." Assent being given, the verdict is delivered. (1 Chitty\'s Crim. Law, 518.) This process identifies the jury and the prisoner, and the offence—ascertains unanimity—and is a public and a solemn promulgation of the finding. The foreman is the spokesman of the jury by their own election, and the usage of the Courts has given him legal sanction to his character as such. He who acts as foreman, is presumed to be the foreman by choice of the jury. In the case before me, the verdict was written on the indictment, but not signed—it was handed to the State\'s officer by one of the jury, after the jury was called. He was in that act to be recognized as the foreman. Whether he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moyers v. State
...court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to also conduct the cross-examination of the witness. See Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 18 (2); Rex v. White, 170 English Rpts. (Full Reprint) 1318; Leahy v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 570, 13 S.W.2d 874, 880 (19); State v. Ingram, ......
-
Burney v. State
...to regulate, in its discretion, the manner in which the constitutional right of self-representation will be exercised. See Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 18 (1853); Hiatt v. State, 144 Ga.App. 298(6), 240 S.E.2d 894 (1977); Heard v. State, 126 Ga.App. 62, 65, 189 S.E.2d 895 (1972); Moyers v. Stat......
-
Moyers v. State
...court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the defendant to also conduct the cross-examination of the witness. See Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 18 (2); Rex v. White, English Rpts. (Full Reprint) 1318; Leahy v. State, 111 Tex.Cr.R. 570, 13 S.W.2d 874, 880 (19); State v. Ingram, 316 ......
-
Loomis v. State
...defendant to also, or further, cross-examine a witness who had already been cross-examined by the defendant's counsel. And in Roberts v. State, 14 Ga. 18, 21, was by the Supreme Court held that: '[The defendant] appeared in person and by his counsel. He was entitled to conduct the examinati......