State v. Battle, No. 2
| Decision Date | 13 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2 |
| Citation | 183 S.E.2d 641,279 N.C. 484 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Roger Lee BATTLE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, Asst. Attys. Gen. Wm. W. Melvin and T. Buie Costen for the State.
Spruill, Trotter & Lane by Cleveland P. Cherry Rocky Mount, for defendant appellant.
The 'sacred principle of the common law' that no person can twice be put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense has always been an integral part of the law of North Carolina. State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 124 S.E.2d 838; State v. Crocker, 239 N.C. 446, 80 S.E.2d 243; State v. Prince, 63 N.C. 529; State v. Garrigues, 2 N.C. 241 (1795). Therefore, the decision in Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969), which made the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment applicable to the several states through the Fourteenth Amendment, added nothing to our law.
However, the general rule is that an order of mistrial in a criminal case will not support a plea of former jeopardy. See 53 Am.Jur., Trial § 1000 (1945). This rule prevails in North Carolina and in the federal courts. United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824); State v. Whitson, 111 N.C. 695, 16 S.E. 332; State v. Honeycutt, 74 N.C. 391; State v. Bullock, 63 N.C. 570. See State v. Jefferson, 66 N.C. 309.
When the jurors declare their inability to agree, it must be left to the trial judge, in the exercise of his judicial discretion, to decide whether he will then declare a mistrial or require them to deliberate further. State v. Trippe, 222 N.C. 600, 24 S.E.2d 340. This is always a delicate question. Either releasing the jury 'too soon' or holding it 'too long' will bring charges of an abuse of discretion. 'But, after all, they (the trial judges) have the right to order the discharge; and the security which the public have for the faithful, sound and conscientious exercise of this discretion, rests, in this, as in other cases, upon the responsibility of the judges, under their oaths of office.' United States v. Perez, Supra at 580, 6 L.Ed. at 165.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...Carolina's prohibition against double jeopardy "has always been an integral part of the law of North Carolina." State v. Battle, 279 N.C. 484, 486, 183 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1971). North Carolina's prohibition against double jeopardy, found in our Law of the Land Clause, predates any protections......
-
State v. Bethea
...Const. art. I, section 19. This Clause is made applicable to North Carolina through the Fourteenth Amendment. State v. Battle, 279 N.C. 484, 486, 183 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1971). In order for double jeopardy to apply, the two convictions must be [E]ven where evidence to support two or more offen......
-
State v. Williams
...since North Carolina had always recognized the constitutional concept as a "sacred principle of the common law." State v. Battle, 279 N.C. 484, 486, 183 S.E.2d 641, 643 (1971); see State v. Davis, 80 N.C. 384, 387 (1879).2 The reports of the United States Supreme Court are replete with case......
-
State v. Hill
...has long been a fundamental prohibition of our common law and is deeply imbedded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., State v. Battle, 279 N.C. 484, 183 S.E.2d 641 (1971); State v. Cutshall, 278 N.C. 334, 180 S.E.2d 745 (1971); State v. Partlow, 272 N.C. 60, 157 S.E.2d 688 (1967); State v. Birc......
-
"incorporation" of the Criminal Procedure Amendments: the View from the States
...342 U.S. 831 (1951); State v. Mansfield, 176 S.E. 761 (N.C. 1934); State v. Prince, 63 N.C. 529 (1869)); see also State v. Battle, 183 S.E.2d 641, 643 (N.C. 1971) ("The `sacred principle of the common law' that no person can twice be put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense has ......