State v. Tyson

• Decision Date: 04 April 1905
• Citation: 50 S.E. 456,138 N.C. 627
• Parties: STATE v. TYSON.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

50 S.E. 456

138 N.C. 627

STATE v. TYSON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 4, 1905

Appeal from Superior Court, Scotland County; Bryan, Judge.

Rufus Tyson, alias Morrison, was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

Where during the trial of a capital case, one of the jurors became grossly intoxicated, so that all efforts to render him fit for duty were unavailing, the court was justified in discharging the jury and declaring a mistrial.

The Attorney General, for the State.

BROWN J.

Only one exception is presented in the record, and that arises upon the refusal of the court to sustain the plea of former jeopardy and discharge the prisoner. It appears that the prisoner was placed on trial under the same bill of indictment at the April term before Judge Bryan, who discharged the jury, after 4 1/2 days, on account of the drunken condition of a juror, which incapacitated him from further service. From the findings of the court we gather that after the evidence was closed, and pending argument, it was discovered that one of the jurors, one Covington, had without permission, authority, or knowledge of the court or its officers gone to his home, and procured a quantity of liquor, and was in a grossly intoxicated condition on Friday night; that he had been drinking secretly all during the trial: that on Saturday morning, the last day of the term the juror was in a very nervous and besotted condition, and unfit for duty, and that unavailing efforts were made to render him fit; whereupon the court discharged the jury, and made a mistrial, after making a full and complete finding of facts, as appears of record.

It is well settled, and admits of no controversy, that in all cases, capital included, the court may discharge a jury and order a mistrial when it is necessary to attain the ends of justice. It is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge; but in capital cases he is required to find the facts fully, and place them upon record, so that upon a plea of former jeopardy, as in this case, the action of the court may be reviewed. It is, then, the duty of this court to say whether the findings of fact made by Judge Bryan and appearing in the record warranted him in making a mistrial in this case. We have no hesitation in declaring they fully justify his action, and that his honor Judge Peebles properly overruled the prisoner's plea of former jeopardy. We adhere to the maxim of...