The State v. Swank
Decision Date | 30 June 1880 |
Citation | 16 W.Va. 736 |
Parties | The State v. Conkle alias Swank |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
1. In a prosecution for felony a plea of not guilty by an attorney is a nullity; such plea must be pleaded by the defendant in person; and the record should show that fact.
2. a person indicted for felony must be personally present during the trial; and such presence must be shown by the record.
3. Where a judgment against the defendant on a verdict of guilty on an indictment for felony is reversed by the Appellate Court, because the verdict was rendered upon a plea of not guilty pleaded by the defendant by his attorney and not in person, the prisoner is not entitled to a discharge under the constitutional provision, that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.
4. Where a judgment agaiust the defendant on a verdict of guilty on an indictment for felony is reversed, and the verdict set aside because the plea of not guilty pleaded was pleaded by the defendant by attorney and not by the defendant in person, the cause will be remanded to the court below to be further proceeded with to final determination according to law upm the said indictment, as if no plea of not guilty had been pleaded.
5. Upon a trial on an indictment for felony the defendant may on cross examination of a witness for the state ask such witness, if he has employed counsel to aid in the prosecution against the defendant, and if such question is answered in the affirmative by the witness, it may be considered by the jury as tending to show feelings of bias in the witness against the prisoner in giving his testimony, and may be considered by the jury in connection with the credit to be given to the evidence of such witness.
The circuit court of Wood county on the 23d day of March, 1880, rendered a judgment against William Conkle alias William Swank, on an indictment for fel-ony. To this judgment a writ of error and supersedeas were allowed upon the petition of said defendant.
Hon. J. M. Jackson, judge of the fifth judicial circuit, rendered the judgment complained of.
Haymond, Judge, furnishes the following statement of the case:
At a special term of the circuit court of the county of WTood, held on the 20th day of January, 1880, the grand jury, empanelled and sworn in and for the body of said county, found and presented an indictment against William Conkle alias William Swank, for an attempt to commit felonious murder in the said county of Wood. The indictment contains three counts. The first count charges an attempt upon the part of the defendant feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought to kill and murder one A. R. Ralston on the day of November, 1879, in the night time, at the said county of Wood in the manner and form and by the means in the said count mentioned and described. The second count charges the defendant with an attempt feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought to kill and murder A. R. Ralston in the manner and form and by the means in that count mentioned and described, on the day of November, 1879, in the night time, at the said county of Wood. And the third count charges that the defendant on the day of November, 1879, in the night time, at the said county of Wood, did attempt in manner and form and by the means in that count mentioned and described, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought to kill and murder A. R. Ralston, J. H. Swank, Alvinda Swank and A. R. Ralston, Jr.
It further appears, that afterwards on the 23d day of January, 1880, the said court made the following entry and order in the ease, to wit:
Afterwards, on the 29th day of January, 1880, the said court made and entered the following order, to wit: * * * * "Thereupon the prisoner is remanded to jail."
It further appears that afterwards at a circuit court held far said county on the 1st day of March, 1880, the said court made and entered the following order, to wit:
On March 2, 1880, the said circuit court made and entered in the said case the following order, to wit:
It further appears that on the 3d day of March, 1880, said circuit court made and entered an order in said case in these words, to wit:
It also appears that at the said circuit court, continued and held for said county on the 23d day of March, 1880, the said court made and entered the following order, to wit:
Bill of exceptions marked one purports to contain all the material evidence given to the jury at the trial, which is quite voluminous. By this bill of exceptions it also appears, that after the jury had found and returned their said verdict to the court against the prisoner, and thereupon "the defendant by his counsel moved the court to set aside the verdict rendered by the jury in this cause and award a new trial, on the ground that the same is contrary to the evidence, which motion being argued by counsel for the defendant and by the pros-editing attorney the court" overruled the defendant's said motion, and refused to set aside the said verdict and grant a new trial.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dye v. Skeen
...W.Va. 582, 39 S.E. 676; State v. Parsons, 39 W.Va. 464, 19 S.E. 876; State v. Greer, 22 W.Va. 800; State v. Sutfin, 22 W.Va. 771; State v. Conkle, 16 W.Va. 736. Numerous decisions of this Court, recognizing and giving effect to the statute, hold that in a felony case the defendant must be p......
-
State ex rel. Boner v. Boles
...W.Va. 582, 39 S.E. 676; State v. Parsons, 39 W.Va. 464, 19 S.E. 876; State v. Greer, 22 W.Va. 800; State v. Sutfin, 22 W.Va. 771; State v. Conkle, 16 W.Va. 736. This Court has said that this provision of the statute has always been viewed as mandatory, that it will be strictly applied and e......
-
State v. Vance
...582, 39 S.E. 676; State v. Parsons, 39 W.Va. 464, 19 S.E. 876; State v. Greer, 22 W.Va. 800; State v. Sutfin, 22 W.Va. 771; The State v. Conkle, 16 W.Va. 736. Several of these cases, holding that in a felony case the defendant must be personally present when anything is done affecting him, ......
-
State v. Blair
...of a criminal trial when anything is done to affect him was a common-law right which antedated our Constitution. The State v. Conkle, 16 W.Va. 736, 746 et seq. (1880); Younger v. The State, 2 W.Va. 579 (1863). The right of presence has been secured by statute in the Virginias since 1849. St......