State Of West Va. v. Little, (No. 8730)
| Decision Date | 07 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | (No. 8730) |
| Citation | 120 W.Va. 213 |
| Parties | State of West Virginia v. 0. C. Little |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1. Criminal Law
When an accused pleads not guilty to a valid indictment and a jury is sworn to try the issue thereby raised, jeopardy begins, subject to Code, 62-3-7 which provides " * * * in any criminal case the court may discharge the jury when it appears that they cannot agree on a verdict or that there is manifest necessity for such discharge." If a jury, without rendering a verdict, is discharged in conformity with the statute, jeopardy is set at naught.
2. Criminal Law
The "manifest necessity" in a criminal case permitting the discharge of a jury without rendering a verdict may arise from various circumstances. Whatever the circumstances, they must be forceful to meet the statutory prescription.
3. Criminal Law
The power of a court in a criminal case to discharge a jury without rendering a verdict is discretionary; but the power "is a delicate and highly important trust" and must be exercised soundly, else the discharge will become in effect an acquittal of the accused under the Constitution, Article 3, Section 5, which inhibits second jeopardy.
4. Criminal Law
When, in a criminal trial, the state moves that the jury be discharged without rendering a verdict and the accused objects, the burden is on the state to justify the discharge.
Error to Circuit Court, Kanawha County. O. C. Little was convicted of a felony, and he brings error.
Reversed and rendered.
B. T. Clayton and R. Dennis Steed, for plaintiff m error.
Clarence W. Meadows, Attorney General, and Kenneth E. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Upon an indictment for a felony, 0. C. Little pleaded not guilty and a jury was sworn to try him. Before evidence was taken, the noon hour having arrived, the state's witnesses were excused until 1:30 p. m. At that hour they did not return. Their absence continuing until 2 p. m., the prosecuting attorney moved that a juror be withdrawn and a mistrial declared. The accused objected. The court sustained the motion for the reason as shown by the record, that " * * * the court officers have not been advised as to whether these witnesses will return today, or at any other time, or what is delaying their attendance." At a subsequent term the accused was again arraigned. He pleaded former jeopardy; his plea was overruled; he was then tried, convicted and sentenced.
The Constitution, Article 3, Section 5, declares "No person shall be * * * twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offense." When an accused pleads not guilty to a valid indictment and a jury is sworn to try the issue thereby raised, jeopardy begins. 1 Bishop Cr. Law (9th Ed.), sec. 1014. However, Code, 62-3-7 provides " * * * in any criminal case the court may discharge the jury, when it appears that they cannot agree on a verdict or that there is manifest necessity for such discharge." If a jury, without rendering a verdict, is discharged in conformity with the statute, jeopardy is set at naught. State v. Shelton, 116 W. Va 75, 81, 178 S. E. 633. The word "manifest" has been denned "To put beyond question or doubt." Russell v. State, 71 Fla. 236, 71 So. 27, 28. "That is manifest which is clearly evident", says Webster's Dictionary (New Int. 2d). The "manifest necessity" permitting the discharge of a jury, without rendering a verdict, has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...rel. Dandy v. Thompson, 148 W.Va. 263, 134 S.E.2d 730, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 819, 85 S.Ct. 39, 13 L.Ed.2d 30 (1964); State v. Little, 120 W.Va. 213, 197 S.E. 626 (1938). " 'It is improper for the jurors to read any newspaper articles discussing a case on trial. If the articles read are lik......
-
State v. Oldaker
...156 W.Va. 8, 190 S.E.2d 474 (1972). We have discussed what constitutes manifest necessity to discharge a jury. In State v. Little, 120 W.Va. 213, 197 S.E. 626 (1938), we stated that circumstances justifying a mistrial must be forceful. In State v. Davis, 31 W.Va. 390, 7 S.E. 24 (1888), we a......
-
State ex rel. Betts v. Scott
...This Court held that jeopardy barred a retrial, since a showing of manifest necessity had not been made. The issue in State v. Little, 120 W.Va. 213, 197 S.E. 626 (1938), was whether the prosecution's successful request for mistrial when a State's witness did not promptly appear after the n......
-
State v. Pietranton
...136 W.Va. 472, 67 S.E.2d 855; State v. Burke, 130 W.Va. 64, 42 S.E.2d 544; State v. McLane, 126 W.Va. 219, 27 S.E.2d 604; State v. Little, 120 W.Va. 213, 197 S.E. 626. Neither is a plea of former jeopardy sufficient where based on a former trial under a fatally defective indictment. State v......