State v. Baldwin
| Decision Date | 31 January 1879 |
| Citation | 80 N.C. 390 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. J. A. BALDWIN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for an Escape tried at Fall Term, 1878, of MACON Superior Court, before Avery, J.
The bill of indictment was found at fall term, 1877, and is as follows: The jurors, &c., present, that at spring term, 1876, of the superior court of Macon county, one William A. Shepherd and one Henry W. Watson, charged with the murder of one James P. Luckey, were duly committed to the care and custody of J. A. Baldwin, he the said Baldwin then and still being keeper of the common jail of said county, there to be kept and imprisoned in the jail aforesaid until further proceedings be had in pursuance of law. And the jurors, &c., do further present, that whilst the said Shepherd and Watson were in the custody of said Baldwin, as such keeper of the common jail as aforesaid, on the first of October, 1877, in the county aforesaid, he the said Baldwin as keeper aforesaid, unlawfully, negligently and contemptuously did permit and suffer the said Shepherd and Watson to escape and go at large, &c. Under the charge of the court, the jury rendered a verdict of guilty. Judgment, appeal by defendant. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.Attorney General, for the State .
Messrs. Reade, Busbee & Busbee, for defendant .
The defendant as keeper of the common jail of Macon county was charged with the negligent escape from said jail of Wm. A. Shepherd and Henry W. Watson duly committed to the jail upon a charge of the murder of one James P. Luckey.
From the transcript and the case of appeal it appears that the defendant was indicted at fall term, 1877, and that the cause was continued at spring term, 1878, without any statement on the record for whom it was so continued, whether the state or the defendant. At fall term, 1878, on calling the cause for trial, the defendant moved the court to quash the bill of indictment on the ground of the disqualification of four of the grand jurors by whom the bill of indictment was found, by reason of the non-payment of their taxes for the previous year. The motion as to the alleged fact of non-payment of taxes was predicated on the ex parte affidavit of the sheriff of Macon county, and it was urged by defendant that his motion was in apt time, because on his first arraignment his counsel had been misled and prevented from making his motion by a proposition of the solicitor to send a new bill, which it is stated was sent at spring term, 1878, and was ignored by the grand jury. The judge in his case says this did not appear to the court except by the statement of counsel. His Honor overruled the motion to quash, and after a careful consideration of his ruling we do not see that he erred in law.
It is settled that the defendant, as indeed every person accused of a violation of the criminal law of the state, has the right not to be put to a public trial except on a bill of indictment preferred by a grand jury composed of persons qualified as by statute prescribed. If there be a defect in the accusing body, it is the right of the party indicted, by plea in abatement or by motion to quash, to avail himself of such defect; but it is required to be exercised at the earliest opportunity after bill found, which must be upon the arraignment when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Levy
...parties within the ninth degree, he would be subject to challenge. State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457;1 State v. Perry, 44 N. C. 330; State v. Baldwin, 80 N. C. 390; State v. Ketchey, 70 N. C. 621; State v. Shaw, 25 N. C. 532. (7) If he be wanting either in intelligence or in good moral characte......
-
State v. Levy
...the ninth degree, he would be subject to challenge. State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457; [1] State v. Perry, 44 N.C. 330; State v. Baldwin, 80 N.C. 390; State v. Ketchey, 70 N.C. 621; State v. Shaw, 25 N.C. 532. (7) If he be wanting either in intelligence or in good moral character, an objection t......
-
State v. Rorie, 433
...jurors is waived if not taken before the petit jury is sworn and impaneled. G.S. § 9-26; Code 1883, § 1741. Dillard, J., said in State v. Baldwin, 80 N.C. 390, decided in 1879: 'It is settled that the defendant, as indeed every person accused of a violation of the criminal law of the State,......
-
State v. Taylor
...is made. State v. Swafford, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 274; State v. Myers, 10 Lea (Tenn.) 717; State v. Watson, 86 N. C. 624; State v. Baldwin, 80 N. C. 390; State v. Jones, 88 N. C. 671; State v. Seaborn, 15 N. C. 305. The North Carolina court, however, holds that it is in the discretion of the trial ......