State v. Blackwelder
| Decision Date | 30 June 1866 |
| Citation | 61 N.C. 38 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JACOB BLACKWELDER. |
It is error in a Judge to give any charge to the jury in the absence of the prisoner.
MURDER, tried at Spring Term of Rowan Superior Court, before Mitchell, J. The prisoner was convicted and sentenced, and thereupon appealed to this court. It is unnecessary to make any statement of the case.
Attorney General, for the State .
Boyden and Bailey, for the prisoner .
The bill of exceptions contains many statements of testimony, rulings of the presiding Judge, and exceptions of the prisoner's counsel.
Our attention has been particularly called to the following, which relates to what occurred after the jury had received the first instruction from the court, and had retired to consider of their verdict: Not being able to agree, the jury came into court at a late hour in the night, and it is stated that his “Honor again charged the jury in the absence of the prisoner and portion of the counsel.” The jury being still uable to agree, it is set forth that his “Honor again charged them some hours after, in the absence of both the prisoner and his counsel; and, at the request of the jury, he repeated a portion of the charge he had before given them.”
The question thus presented is one of very great importance in the trial of capital crimes. It is whether the prisoner has a right to be present at the bar at all times during the progress of his trial. We believe that the general impression among the profession in this State is, and always has been, that he has such right; and that the practice has always been in conformity to this impression. The point has never been directly adjudicated, but in the case of State v. Craton, 6 Ire., 104, the implication in favor of the existence of the right is so strong, that we must regard it as equivalent to a positive decision.
In that case it was objected that it it did not appear by the record that the prisoner was personally present in court, at the time of the trial and sentence. The Supreme Court, without the slightest intimation that such presence of the prisoner was unnecessary, overruled the objection, upon the ground that, taking the whole record together, it did sufficiently appear, either by positive assertions or necessary implications, that he was present in court both during his trial, and at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams, 264A90-2
...trial. The defendant's right to be present at every stage of the trial "ought to be kept forever sacred and inviolate." State v. Blackwelder, 61 N.C. 38, 40 (1866). In fact, the defendant's right to be present at every stage of his capital trial is not waiveable. State v. Artis, 325 N.C. 27......
-
State v. Moss
...trial. The defendant's right to be present at every stage of the trial "ought to be kept forever sacred and inviolate." State v. Blackwelder, 61 N.C. 38, 40 (1866). In fact, the defendant's right to be present at every stage of his capital trial is not waiveable. State v. Artis, 325 N.C. 27......
-
State v. Ali, No. 107A88
...stage of the proceeding. We disagree. In State v. Smith, 326 N.C. 792, 392 S.E.2d 362 (1990), relying upon cases such as State v. Blackwelder, 61 N.C. 38 (1866), this Court held that the trial court's removal of three jurors on the basis of private conversations with each at the bench const......
-
Miles v. State, 27906.
...privilege of the accused it has been read by implication into the Bill of Rights. See Andrews v. State, supra, State v. Blackwelder, 1866, 61 N.C. 38, 1 Phil. 38;People v. McGrane, 1929, 336 Ill. 404, 168 N.E. 321. But we find in none of these Constitutions any right stated that by reasonab......