State v. Green
| Citation | 95 N.C. 611 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN E. GREEN. |
This is an indictment for BURGLARY WITH INTENT TO COMMIT RAPE, tried before Clark, Judge, at the August Term, 1886, of JONES Superior Court.
The only exceptions taken in the case were those taken upon the challenges of jurors.
Thomas Stilley, a juror of the special venire, on his “ voir dire,” said that he had formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was guilty. On his cross-examination, he said this opinion was based upon general rumor, and that he had not heard the evidence or talked to any of the witnesses. He was then asked by the Court: “Is your mind so fair and unbiased that you can hear the evidence and render a verdict without being in any degree influenced by what you have heard or said?” the Court emphasizing the words in any degree. The juror replied “that it was,” and on further examination by counsel, stated that he would not be biased in any manner by the opinion he had heretofore expressed. The Court disallowed the challenge for cause, and the prisoner excepted, and challenged the juror peremptorily.
Two other jurors on being challenged and cross-examined in same manner, made the same responses, and the challenges for cause were disallowed and prisoner excepted. The first of the two was then challenged peremptorily, as to the latter, the peremptory challenges of the prisoner being exhausted, the juror was sworn and served.
A juror by the name of Benjamin Brown was passed by the State, and when challenged by the prisoner for cause, replied that he had not formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was guilty, but “had formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was not guilty.” The prisoner said, ““tender him.” The State then immediately asked the Court in its discretion to allow it to challenge him for cause. After considerable examination by the State and by defendant, the Court asked the juror: “Is your mind so fair and unbiassed that you can hear the evidence and render a verdict without being in any degree influenced by what you have heard?” The juror replied that it was. The Court thereupon in its discretion, (the jury not yet being complete nor empaneled), allowed the State's challenge for cause, and the juror was stood aside. The prisoner excepted. There was a verdict of guilty. The sentence of the law was pronounced, and the prisoner appealed.
The Attorney-General, for the State .
No counsel, for the defendant.
ASHE, J., (after stating the case as above).
We find no errors in the rulings of his Honor in the matters excepted to by the defendant. The ground of the exceptions to the ruling with regard to the challenge of the juror Stilly, has been time and again held by this Court not to be sufficient ground of challenge. In State v. Kilgore, 93 N. C., 533, it was held, that when a juror, challenged by the defendant, says he has formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner is guilty, but states further that his mind was fair and unbiased, and that he could hear the evidence and render a verdict without being in any degree influenced by what he had heard or said, he was competent to serve as a juryman, and the challenge was properly disallowed. To the same effect is State v. Collins, 70 N. C., 241; State v. Ellington, 7 Ired., 61; State v. Bone, 7 Jones, 121; State v?? Cockerham, 2 Winston, 484.
Two other jurors challenged for like cause as the first, who gave the same response upon the examination, were tendered, the one was peremptorily challenged by the prisoner, and the other after the prisoner's challenges were exhausted, was sworn and put on the jury. The same principle applies to these as to the first juror challenged.
The last exception was to the ruling of the Court in overruling the challenge of the prisoner to the juror Benjamin Brown. This juror had been passed by the State and was tendered to the prisoner, and upon his voir dire having stated that he had formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
...State v. Banner, 149 N. C. 519, 63 S. E. 84, and is overruled. See, also, State v. De-Graff, 113 N. C. 688, 18 S. E. 507; State v. Green, 95 N. C. 611; State v. Kilgore, 93 N. C. 533. It does not clearly appear that the challenges of the prisoners had been exhausted. Gregory's Supplement, §......
-
State v. Register
...finding is not reviewable. State v. De Graff, 113 N. C. 688, 18 S. E. 507; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457, 6 S. E. 657; State v. Greene, 95 N. C. 611; State v. Collins, 70 N. C. 241, 16 Am. Rep. 771. The fourth, fifth, and sixth exceptions are omitted from the brief of the prisoner's counsel......
- State v. Register
-
State v. Graffenreid
...Bohanon, 142 N.C. 695, 55 S.E. 797; State v. Register, 133 N.C. 746, 747, 46 S.E. 21; State v. DeGraff, 113 N.C. 688, 18 S.E. 507; State v. Green, 95 N.C. 611. The ruling in respect of the impartiality of the juror Pattishall presents no reviewable question of law. State v. Bailey, supra; S......