State v. Boon
| Decision Date | 31 January 1879 |
| Citation | 80 N.C. 461 |
| Parties | STATE v. THOMAS BOON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
INDICTMENT for Murder tried at Fall Term, 1878, of YANCEY Superior Court, before Gudger, J.
The prisoner and one Edward Boon were indicted for the murder of John S. Woodfin, the latter as having done the killing, and the prisoner as being present, aiding and abetting. The case states that His Honor instructed the sheriff in executing the writ of venire facias to summon such men only as were freeholders and had paid their taxes for the last year, and in selecting the jury challenges were allowed both to the state and to the prisoner, because those challenged were not freeholders, or had not paid their taxes.
One of the jurors was called and passed without challenge to the prisoner, and was tendered and accepted by him. On coming to the book to be sworn, he stated that he was related both to deceased and prisoner; thereupon and at his request the court directed him to stand aside, and declined to allow him to serve as a juror. Prisoner excepted.
It was in evidence that Edward Boon was present at the time of the homicide, and there was some evidence that he shot the deceased. And on cross-examination of a witness for the state, the prisoner proposed to prove that about a half hour after the shooting, on the same night, and as the witness and said Edward Boon were on their way home, Edward Boon said he shot deceased because he was trying to cut him with a knife. This evidence was objected to, and ruled out. Prisoner excepted.
After the verdict of guilty, the prisoner moved for a new trial on the exceptions above stated, and also, because of the instructions given to the sheriff in summoning the special venire. The prisoner exhausted his peremptory challenges before a jury were obtained, and two jurors were sworn after his challenges were exhausted, and he insisted that the order to summon freeholders and such as had paid taxes was to his prejudice, as it might have been otherwise had the order not been given. The rule for a new trial was discharged, and judgment pronounced, from which the prisoner appealed.
Attorney General, for the state .
Messrs. Reade, Busbee & Busbee, for the prisoner .
After the prisoner was found guilty by the jury, a rule was obtained in his behalf for a new trial on the following grounds--(1) because proper evidence had been rejected, (2) because a juror was made to stand aside and was not allowed to serve on the jury after he had been tendered and accepted by the prisoner, but before he was sworn, he being related to prisoner and deceased, and (3) because when the order was made for a special venire, His Honor instructed the sheriff to summon only freeholders and such as had paid their taxes for the last year. Rule discharged.
The first exception to the ruling of the court,--the declaration of Edward Boon that he had shot the deceased was inadmissible, is overruled. There was no error. The evidence was properly rejected. It was only hearsay, and if admitted could not have disproved the guilt of the prisoner. State v. May, 4 Dev., 328; State v. Duncan, 6 Ire., 236; State v. White, 68 N. C., 158.
The second exception is equally untenable. It is the duty of the court to see that a competent, fair and impartial jury are impannelled, subject to the right of the prisoner to peremptory challenges. McCarty v. The State, 26 Miss., 299; State v. Marshall, 8 Ala., 306; Montague v. Com., 10 Gratt., 767; Whar. Cr. Law, § 3,139.
The other ground for a new trial, and the only one seriously urged by the prisoner's counsel in this court, was, that when the order was made for a venire facias the judge instructed the sheriff to summon only freeholders and such persons as had paid their taxes for the last year. It was insisted here that the prisoner was entitled to a new trial on account of this irregularity; that while it was conceded that ordinarily the proper course for the prisoner to take would be to challenge the array, yet in this case it could not have been done, because the court had undertaken to instruct the sheriff whom to summon, to-wit, freeholders, &c.; that in England if there was cause of challenge to the sheriff, the process shall be directed to the coroner, and if any against the coroner, then the court shall appoint elisors against whose return no challenge shall be made to the array, because they were appointed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Atkinson, 22
...in its discretion, may excuse a prospective juror without a challenge by either party. State v. Vann, supra; State v. Vick, supra; State v. Boon, 80 N.C. 461; State v. Jones, 80 N.C. 415. It is immaterial that this is done as the result of information voluntarily disclosed by the prospectiv......
-
State v. Lane
... ... These exceptions were taken to the ... refusal of the court to admit evidence of statements made by ... another person that he had killed McCain, and that another ... person was seen going in the direction of the swamp with a ... gun. It was expressly decided in State v. Boon, 80 ... N.C. 461, citing State v. Duncan, 28 N.C. 236, ... State v. May, 15 N.C. 328, and State v ... White, 68 N.C. 158, that, on a trial for murder, ... evidence of the declarations of a third party that he killed ... the deceased are inadmissible as hearsay and as not tending ... to ... ...
-
State v. Harris
...duty, it may stand aside a juror at any time before the jury are impaneled and charged with the case. State v. Jones, supra; State v. Boon, supra (80 N.C. 461) and cases therein cited. The court, therefore, may act of its own motion, in furtherance of justice, and need not wait for a formal......
-
State v. Vann
...court sustained the challenge and he was excused. We do not perceive any error in this ruling. The precise question was raised in State v. Boon, 80 N.C. 461. In that one of the jurors was called, and passed without a challenge to the prisoner, who accepted him. When he was about to be sworn......