State v. Anthony
| Decision Date | 30 June 1847 |
| Citation | 7 Ired. 234,29 N.C. 234 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ANTHONY, A SLAVE. |
On the trial of an indictment against a slave for a capital offence, it is good cause of challenge on the part of the State to one called as a juror, that he is nearly related to the owner of the slave, as it would be on the part of the prisoner that a juror was a near relative of the prosecutor.
An indictment for high-way robbery may charge either that the robbery was committed in the high-way or that it was committed near the high-way.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Northampton County, at the Spring Term, 1847, his Honor Judge BAILEY presiding.
The prisoner is a slave of Kinchen Powell, and was indicted with a free woman, for robbing Joseph Britt, in the public high-way, of one dollar and other things. When forming a jury for the separate trial of the prisoner, three of the persons drawn and tendered were challenged by the Attorney General, because they were related to the owner of the prisoner; and, that appearing, the challenges were allowed, notwithstanding an objection by the prisoner's counsel. Afterwards a jury was formed before the prisoner exhausted his number of peremptory challenges, and he was convicted. His counsel moved for a venire de novo, for error in allowing those challenges, which was refused. He then moved in arrest of judgment, because the indictment did not conclude contra formam statuti, which was also refused; and then sentence of death was passed, and he appealed to this Court.
Attorney General, for the State .
Bragg, for the defendant .
The Court is opinion, that the challenges were properly allowed. It is true, the statutes which give slaves the trial by jury in capital cases, do not specify the qualifications of the jurors, farther than that they shall be owners of slaves; but only require that they shall be good and lawful men, and prescribe that the trial shall be conducted under the same rules, regulations and restrictions, as trials of free-men for a like offence. Rev. Stat. c. 111, s. 43, 45, 46. Yet the latter provisions are sufficiently comprehensive to entitle the slave to all those privileges, which are intended to secure to an accused person a jury, indifferent between him and the State. It is clear the prosecutor, or one nearly related to him, would not be a good juror, if challenged for that cause by the prisoner. The application of the principle, on which that rule stands, and on which the common law proceeds in forming juries in all cases, necessarily excludes the owner of the slave, or his son, and, by consequence, any other relation from sitting on the trial. The concern in interest or feeling of those persons in the result is inconsistent with that indifferency, which the law seeks. If this slave were the subject of a civil action between his owner and another, neither of those persons could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Chicago v. Harmon
...Helmer, 25 Barb. 31; Harrisburg Bank v. Forster, 8 Watts, 306; The People v. Bodine, 1 Denio, 306; Davis v. Allen, 11 Pick. 469; State v. Anthony, 7 Ired. 234; Hinchman v. Clark, Coxe. 446; Bank v. Hart, 3 Conn. 491; Ga. R. R. Co. v. Hart, 60 Ga. 556. If a party accepts a juror in ignorance......
-
State v. Lawrence, 1
...in or near a public highway (highway robbery) was a capital offense in North Carolina. State v. Johnson, 61 N.C. 140 (1866); State v. Anthony, 29 N.C. 234 (1847). But the distinction between robbery and highway robbery, as to punishment and otherwise, is no longer recognized in this jurisdi......
-
State v. Lynch, 87
...in or near a public highway (highway robbery) was a capital offense in North Carolina. State v. Johnson, 61 N.C. 140 (1866); State v. Anthony, 29 N.C. 234 (1847).' As to the variance with reference to the ownership of the stolen money, it is noted that '[t]he gist of the offense (robbery) i......
-
State v. Burke
...Cr. L., vol. 11, 1108-1109, Battle's Revisal, chap. 32, sec. 19, Rev. Code, chap. 34, sec. 2. “In or near a highway” sufficient. State v. Anthony, 7 Ired. 234, State v. Cowan, 7 Ired. 237. 2. Description of money sufficient. Battle's Revisal, chap. 32, sec. 19. State v. Thomason, 71 N. C. R......