State v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 78 N.C. 558 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. M. C. DIXON and another. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for an Affray tried at Spring Term, 1877, of GUILFORD Superior Court, before Cox, J.
The defendants, M. C. Dixon and J. B. Gretter, were indicted for an affray and put upon trial on a new bill substituted for that upon which they had been arrested, and differing from the first, only in the order in which their names appeared on the bill. When the evidence offered for the State was concluded, the Court directed the defendant, Dixon, to introduce and examine his witnesses, and then the other defendant to do the same. Some of the evidence offered by the defendant, Gretter, tended to the inculpation of Dixon, and the latter was offered an opportunity to meet and rebut it, which was declined. The jury found both defendants guilty and the Court pronounced judgment, from which Dixon appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
Messrs. J. A. Gilmer and J. T. Morehead, for defendant .
SMITH, C. J. (After stating the facts as above.)
We find nothing in the conduct of the cause of which the appellant can rightfully complain. The Solicitor is not restricted to the first bill, but may at any time before entering upon the trial send another bill to the grand jury, and require the defendants to answer that. It is equally plain that where several persons are charged, whether they unite in a common defence, or as in this case where their defences are separate and antagonistic, the Court must regulate the order and manner in which the defences are to be presented; and the exercise of this discretion cannot be reviewed in this Court. But as far as any rule of practice is to be found, it was observed in this case, by calling on the defendant whose name first appeared on the bill, to begin his defence. This was done in the case of Regina v. Barber, 1 Car. & Payne, 434, where the defendants' counsel were unable to agree among themselves.
No error.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Southerland
...court will entertain such exceptions and review the rulings of the trial judge. Nothing of that nature appears in this record. State v. Dixon, 78 N.C. 558; v. Parish, 104 N.C. 689 ; State v. Hastings, 86 N.C. 597; State v. Haney, 19 N.C. 390; State v. Murphy, 84 N.C. 742." In State v. Finle......
-
Smith v. State
...bill,' and refuse to require the solicitor to elect till the close of the evidence for the state. State v. Hastings, 86 N. C. 596; State v. Dixon, 78 N. C. 558; State v. Watts, 82 N. C. 656; State v. Haney, supra; and State v. Reel, "In State v. McNeill, 93 N. C. 552, Justice Merrimon, deli......
-
Emery v. State
...jurisdictions by statute, it has not been changed in this state. Schoeffler v. State, 3 Wis. 823;Com. v. Wallace, 123 Mass. 401;State v. Dixon, 78 N. C. 558;Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, 12 N. E. 865, and 17 N. E. 898;State v. Kirkpatrick, 74 Iowa, 505, 38 N. W. 380;Com. v. Miller, 150 Mass.......
-
State v. Pannil
...will entertain such exceptions and review the rulings of the trial judge. Nothing of that nature appears in this record, citing State v. Dixon, 78 N.C. 558; State v. Parish, 104 N.C. 689, 10 S.E. State v. Hastings, 86 N.C. 597; State v. Haney, 19 N.C. 390; State v. Murphy, 84 N.C. 742. See,......