State v. Vann
| Decision Date | 31 January 1881 |
| Citation | 84 N.C. 722 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM H. VANN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
PROCEEDING in a criminal action at Fall Term, 1880, of HERTFORD Superior Court, before Schenck, J.
The prisoner being brought to the bar of the court for judgment pursuant to the decision of this court, reported in 82 N. C., 631, was asked if he had anything further to say than he had already said why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon him, and in answer thereto (through his counsel) suggested that the prisoner since his conviction had become insane, and in support thereof produced affidavits. Thereupon he demanded a jury trial of the question of his insanity and asked for a continuance of the cause until the next term to prepare for trial. The court held that he was entitled to a jury to inquire into the fact, and if it should be found favorably to the prisoner, the judgment must be suspended until his sanity was restored, and thereupon remanded him to prison and continued the case that the issue might be tried by a jury. From this ruling the solicitor for the state appealed.
Attorney General, for the State submitted the case upon the rule laid down in 4 Blk. Com., 25, 395, 396.
No counsel for defendant.
The order is strictly one of continuance based upon an opinion hypothetical and dependent upon the finding of the jury. If that finding be adverse to the prisoner, the question will not arise. It is needless to cite authorities to show that an appeal in a criminal case lies to this court only after a final determination, and we simply refer to the recent case of State v. Hinson, 82 N. C., 540, and those therein cited, and its recognition in State v. Pollard, 83 N. C., 597.
It is true that in State v. Lane, 4 Ired., 434, the late chief justice then presiding in the superior court of law of Edgecombe, refused to proceed to judgment according to the mandate of this court, on the ground that one of its members having died during the argument, the two surviving judges were incompetent to proceed until the vacancy was supplied, and an appeal from this refusal was entertained and a peremptory mandate awarded. But this was in substance a final determination of the cause as then before the superior court, and furnishes no precedent for the present appeal.
As however the question intended to be presented will probably arise hereafter, and we have formed a definite opinion upon it, we will consider and dispose of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Solesbee v. Balkcom
...A. 47; In re Herron, 77 N.J.L. 315, 72 A. 133; Id., 79 N.J.L. 67, 73 A. 599. II. Common law procedure: (12) North Carolina. See State v. Vann, 84 N.C. 722, 724; State v. Godwin, 216 N.C. 49, 3 S.E.2d 347; State v. Sullivan, 229 N.C. 251, 49 S.E.2d 458. See also N.C.Gen.Stat.Ann. §§ 122-84, ......
-
Ford v. Wainwright
...See, e.g., 1 F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law Sec. 59, at 89 (8th ed. Philadelphia 1880) (1st ed. Philadelphia 1846); State v. Vann, 84 N.C. 722 (1881). State courts have continued to reaffirm the English common law rule of preventing the execution of the presently insane. See, e.......
-
State v. Godwin
...statute, C.S. § 6237, which became the law for the first time as Section 65 of Chapter 1, of the Public Laws of 1899. The case of State v. Vann, supra, therefore, states the common law rule. After 1899, the was controlled by statute and it is, therefore, important to examine the language of......
-
State v. Sullivan
...53 and 54, applicable rules of the common law and decided cases of this Court, State v. Harris, 53 N.C, 136, 78 Am.Dec. 272; State v. Vann, 84 N.C. 722; State v. Haywood, 94 N.C. 847; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454, 62 S.E. 638; State v. Sandlin, 156 N.C. 624, 72 S.E. 203; State v Godwin, 21......