State v. Freeze

• Decision Date: 17 November 1915
• Docket Number: (No. 355.)
• Citation: State v. Freeze, 170 N. C. 710, 86 S. E. 1000 (N.C. 1915)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. FREEZE.

86 S.E. 1000

170 N.C. 710

STATE.

v.FREEZE.

(No. 355.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 17, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Lyon, Judge.

Hazel Freeze was convicted of stealing a stack of hay, and appeals. Affirmed.

There was a verdict of guilty, judgment on the verdict, and defendant appealed on the alleged ground that he was not present at the time the verdict against him was rendered. The case on appeal agreed upon by counsel, after stating the indictment, plea, impaneling of the jury, evidence, verdict, and judgment, and appeal without exception or other statement appearing in the record, contains the following:

"Defendant duly excepted to the verdict of the jury on the ground that neither he nor his attorney were present at the rendering of the verdict against him by the jury, and the defendant assigns as error that the verdict of the jury was rendered against him in the absence of both himself and his attorney, and that he had no opportunity whatever to poll the jury, as they were discharged before himself or his attorney were informed of the verdict."

N. L. Eure, of Greensboro, for appellant.

The Attorney General and T. H. Calvert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HOKE, J. In State v. Cherry, 154 N. C. 624, 626, 70 S. E. 294, 295, in speaking of the right of a defendant to be present at different stages of the trial in capital and lesser felonies, this court said:

"It is the law of this state, a principle having prominent place in our Declaration of Rights, that in every criminal prosecution the defendant has the right to be informed of the accusation against him and to confront his accusers and their witnesses. Applying the principle, this court has held in several cases that in capital trials this right to be present in the court below cannot be waived, but that the presence of the prisoner is essential at all stages of the trial. In felonies less than capital and in misdemeanors, the same right to be present exists, but may be voluntarily waived by the accused; a limitation being that in the case of felonies certainly this waiver may not be made by counsel unless expressly authorized thereto. State v. Jenkins, 84 N. C. 812, 37 Am. St. Rep. 643. The decisions are also to the effectthat when the accused voluntarily absents himself, and more especially when he has fled the court, such conduct may be considered and construed as a waiver, and in that event the presence of the accused is not regarded as essential to a valid trial and conviction"—citing State v. Pierce, 123 N. C. 745, 31 S. E. 847; State v. Kelly, 97 N. C 404, 2 S. E. 185, 2 Am. St. Rep. 299; State v. Paylor, 89 N. C. 540; Clark's Criminal...