State v. Wilcox
Decision Date | 09 December 1889 |
Citation | 104 N.C. 847,10 S.E. 453 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | State v. Wilcox. |
Grand Jury—Drawing—Removal from County.
1. That a member of the grand jury presenting an indictment for perjury was a juror in the action in which the perjury is charged to have been committed is no ground for plea in abatement.
2. That county commissioners in drawing jurors laid aside the names of several, supposing that they had removed from or were unknown in the county, will not disqualify a grand jury.
8. That one of the grand jurors became a resident of another county after his name was drawn, and before he served, is sufficient ground for quashing an indictment.
This was an indictment for perjury, tried at the spring term, 1889, of the superior court of Ashe county, before Armfield, J. The defendant filed a plea in abatement, and the solicitor agreed with his counsel as to the facts, as follows: The court sustained the plea, and ordered that the indictment be quashed. The solicitor for the state appealed.
T. R. Purnell and J. F. Morphew, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.
Avery, J., (after stating the facts as above.) The fact that a member of the grand jury that found the indictment was also one of the petit jury that tried the action in which, as it is charged, the perjury was committed, is not good ground for a plea in abatement. If the juror was not otherwise disqualified by law, his personal knowledge or opinion that there was probable cause for believing the defendant guilty of perjury, formed from what had occurred under his own observation, when he was required to critically and closely scrutinize the evidence, made it his duty to disclose such peculiar knowledge to his fellows for their consideration and action. The grand jury are " returned to inquire of all offenses in general in the county, determinable by the court into which they are returned, " and are sworn diligently to inquire and true presentment make of all such matters and things as are given them in charge. It is the duty of the presiding judge to give them in charge the whole criminal law, whether general or local In its operation. Thomp. & M. Juries, § 605; U. S. v. Hill, 1 Brock. 156. 'Hardy's Case, 24 How. St. Tr. 201. It is their peculiar province to inform against and to present all offenders against the criminal laws of the state. State v. Wolcott, 21 Conn. 272; Ward v. State, 2 Mo. 120; State v. Terry, 30 Mo. 368.
There can be no question about the fact that at common law a grand jury was charged especially with inquisitorial duties, and, where there was probable cause to suspect that the law had been violated, they were considered bound by their oaths to institute inquiry and investigation. They had originally " the right to send for witnesses, and have them sworn to giveevidence generally, and to found presentments on the evidence of such witnesses." Whart. Crim. Law, § 457, note h. But our statute (Code, § 743) forbids the payment of the fees of any witness before the grand jury unless summoned by direction of the foreman or solicitor, as therein...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Quinn v. United States
... ... Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has ruled on the question. Even in regard to bias arising from a direct financial interest, the state cases are in confusion and this court might well start afresh in fashioning a rule for this jurisdiction. 5 I have discovered no case — state or ... Wilcox, 1889, 104 N.C. 847, 10 S.E. 453, 454 (dictum — "The fact that the magistrate who committed a defendant was foreman of the indicting grand jury * * ... ...
-
Bartram v. State
... ... 825 (1922); (e) the father of a rape case prosecutrix, Zell v. State, 15 Ohio App. 446, 32 Ohio C.A. 385 (1922); (f) the committing magistrate, State v. Chairs, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 196 (1877); (g) a member of a petit jury before whom perjury was alleged to have been committed, State v. Wilcox, 104 N.C. 847, 10 S.E. 453 (1889); (h) a special police officer, Commonwealth v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 40 N.E. 846 (1895); (i) a member of an organization the object of which was to detect crime, Musick v. The People, 40 Ill. 268 (1866); (j) that he had previously issued a warrant for and ... ...
-
Bartram v. State
... ... 825 (1922); (e) the father of a rape case prosecutrix, Zell v. State, 15 Ohio App. 446, 32 Ohio C.A. 385 (1922); (f) the committing magistrate, State v. Chairs, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 196 (1877); (g) a member of a petit jury before whom perjury was alleged to have been committed, State v. Wilcox, 104 N.C. 847, 10 S.E. 453 (1889); (h) a special police officer, Commonwealth v. Hayden, 163 Mass. 453, 40 N.E. 846 (1895); (i) a member of an organization the object of which was to detect crime, Musick v. The People, 40 Ill. 268 (1866); (j) that he had previously issued a warrant for and ... ...
-
State v. Gunter
... ... Wilcox, 104 N.C. 847, 10 S.E. 453 ... Upon a hearing, duly had, the facts were found against the ... defendants on their motion to quash, and with respect to the ... legality of the grand jury. In this, there was no error. The ... two rulings are directly supported by the decisions in ... State v ... ...