State v. Godwin
| Decision Date | 30 June 1845 |
| Citation | 5 Ired. 401,27 N.C. 401,44 Am.Dec. 42 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. TOBIAS GODWIN. |
Where a motion is made in the court below, even in a capital case, to set aside a verdict, upon the ground of improper conduct in the jurors, or other matters extrinsic of the record, and this motion is founded on affidavits, the Supreme Court will not look into the affidavits. They can only decide upon the record presented to them, and, therefore, if such motion is designed to be submitted to their revision, the facts must be ascertained by the court below and spread upon the record.
Where, in a capital case, when one of the jury, on their coming into court and being polled, said “that when he first went out, he was not for finding the prisoner guilty, but that a majority of the jury was against him, and that he then agreed to the verdict of guilty, as delivered in by the foreman,” and when, being again asked, what is your verdict now, he replied, “I find the prisoner guilty:” Held that there was no objection in law to the verdict.
The case of the State v. Miller, 1 Dev. & Bat. 500. State v. Ephraim, 2 Dev. & Bat. 163; and State v. Lytle, 5 Ired. 58, cited and approved.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Johnston County, at the Spring Term, 1845, his Honor Judge DICK presiding.
The prisoner was tried for murder; and, upon the return of the jury into court, they were polled at the prisoner's request. Eleven of them, each for himself, answered simply that he found the prisoner guilty. The remaining juror answered, that when the jury first went out he was not for finding the prisoner guilty, but that a majority of the jury was against him, and that he then agreed to the verdict as delivered in by the foreman. He was further asked, ““what is your verdict now?” and he replied, “I find the prisoner guilty.”
A motion was then made for the prisoner to set aside the verdict, upon the ground, that it thence appeared, that the jury had agreed to decide according to the majority; and upon the further ground, that the constable, who had the charge of the jury during their retirement, left the jury for the space of half an hour, and thereby afforded an opportunity for the jury to be tampered with.
In support of the latter ground, it is stated in the record, that the prisoner read his own affidavit and those of two other persons, which stated, that the jury room opened from the Court room, and that the jury retired about 9 o'clock at night and the judge then left the bench: that the court room was crowded with persons, while the jury was out, who were talking about the case, and that the son-in-law of the deceased and other enemies of the prisoner were often near the door of the jury room; and that it was several times opened, but by whom the witness could not state; and that the officer, having charge of the jury, was several times absent from the door for some minutes at a time. The prisoner swore, that he believed there was opportunity to tamper with the jury, although he could not say, that any person actually attempted to do so.
On the other side the constable himself swore, that when the jury retired he immediately locked the door of their room, and that, until the jury came out to deliver their verdict, it was not opened, except to enable him to supply the jury with water and candles, and then, only as long as was necessary for those purposes: That he generally stood at the door, as well as kept it locked; but that he left it, when the jury wanted water and candles, and went for them; and that he also once went to the Judge to ask permission for the jury to have food: That whenever he left the door, he took the key with him, after locking the door; and that he believed it impossible, that any communication could have been had with the jury through the door.
The record states, that the court refused the motion and passed sentence of death on the prisoner, who appealed. The presiding Judge ordered the affidavits, which had been read to the court, to be sent up as part of the case.
Attorney General for the State .
Saunders for the defendant .
It is not in the power of this court to look into the affidavits, or, at least to act on them. One would think this must be understood, upon a moment's reflection on the nature of the jusisdiction of the court. In matters of common law, it is strictly a court of error and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Graffenreid
...is not sustained. State v. Boggan, 133 N.C. 761, 46 S.E. 111; State v. Harper, 101 N.C. 761, 7 S.E. 730, 9 Am.St.Rep. 46; State v. Godwin, 27 N.C. 401, 44 Am.Dec. 42. As no reversible error has been made to appear, the verdict and judgment will be upheld. No ...
-
State v. De Graffenreid
... ... 511, 39 S.E. 814; ... State v. Lambert, 93 N.C. 618; State v ... Miller, 18 N.C. 500. The exception based on this part of ... the record is not sustained. State v. Boggan, 133 ... N.C. 761, 46 S.E. 111; State v. Harper, 101 N.C ... 761, 7 S.E. 730, 9 Am.St.Rep. 46; State v. Godwin ... ...
-
State v. De Graff
...it is settled by repeated decisions that, where the facts are not found, the affidavits cannot be considered in this court. In state v. Godwin, 5 Ired. 401, Chief Ruffin discussed the question very elaborately, and adopted the above conclusion as "unavoidable." In that case the prisoner was......
-
State v. Graff
...and it is settled by repeated decisions that, where the facts are not found, the affidavits cannot be considered in this court, in State v. Godwin, 5 Ired. 401, Chief Justice Ruffin discussed the question very elab-orately, and adopted the above conclusion as "unavoidable." In that case the......