Williams v. State
| Citation | 60 Md. 402 |
| Parties | JASON WILLIAMS v. THE STATE OF MARYLAND. |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1883 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
The cause was argued before Alvey, Stone, Robinson and Irving JJ.
Wm. A. Hammond and Henry E. Wootton, for the plaintiff in error.
Charles J. M. Gwinn, Attorney-General, for the defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error was tried in the Circuit Court for Howard County, on an indictment for murder; and the jury when they came to the bar to deliver their verdict, declared by their foreman, that he was guilty of murder in the first degree. Before the verdict was recorded, the plaintiff in error demanded a poll of the jury; and each juror, when called upon to answer for himself and in his own language, responded "guilty," without specifying the degree of murder. Now, murder in the first degree is punishable by death, and murder in the second degree, by confinement in the penitentiary. The Code, therefore, provides that on an indictment for murder, the jury shall, if they find the person "guilty," ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder in the first or second degree. A general verdict of "guilty" on an indictment for murder, is a bad verdict, and on such a verdict no judgment can be pronounced. Ford v. State, 12 Md. 514.
The prisoner was entitled, as a matter of right, to a poll of the jury, and he could not be convicted, except upon the concurrence of each juror. Upon the poll, it was the duty of each juror to say for himself, whether he found the prisoner guilty of murder in the first or second degree. We all know that jurors sometimes, upon the poll, dissent from the verdict declared for them by their foreman, and it is for the purpose of compelling each juror to declare his own verdict, in his own language, that a poll of the panel is allowed. Upon the poll in this case, there was not a single juror who, in finding the prisoner guilty, ascertained the degree of murder as required by the Code. On the contrary, the verdict was "guilty," and such a verdict is, as we have said, on an indictment for murder, a nullity.
The fact that the clerk, immediately after polling the jury called upon them to hearken to the verdict, as the Court had recorded it--"Your foreman saith that Jason Williams, the prisoner at the bar, is guilty of murder in the first degree, and so say you all," does not affect the question. It was to this verdict as delivered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Santiago, No. 14, September Term, 2009 (Md. App. 12/21/2009)
...THE COSTS. 1. A defendant has the absolute right to have a poll of the jury and to have each juror assent to the verdict. Williams v. State, 60 Md. 402, 403 (1883) (affirming that the "purpose of [polling is to] compel[] each juror to declare his own verdict, in his own language"); Coby v. ......
-
French v. Bishop
...and the jury "responded affirmatively" when asked to confirm. Id. The appellate court noted that French had relied on Williams v. State, 60 Md. 402, 403-4 (1883) for his position that the hearkening was insufficient to correct the defective pronouncement, but "more recent cases from the Cou......
-
Diamond State Tel. Co. v. Blake
...... or a written agreement had been filed and entered upon the. docket, the amendment of the verdict would have been. justified, and we can see no possible reason why that would. not have been so. . . The. cases of Ford v. State, 12 Md. 514, and Williams. v. State, 60 Md. 402, also relied on by the appellant,. do not reflect upon the question before us. They held that a. verdict of "guilty" on an indictment for murder was. not sufficient, but it was because our statute requires the. jury to "ascertain in their verdict whether it be murder. in ......
-
Lancaster v. State
...534; 26 Ark. 514; 31 Fla. 176, 164; 32 Fla. 244; 40 Ala. 698; 42 Ala. 509; 45 Ala. 32; 54 Ala. 520; 65 Ala. 492; 71 Ala. 329; 12 Md. 514; 60 Md. 402. This court has power to reverse the Sand. & H. Dig. § 2432. OPINION RIDDICK, J. The defendant, John Lancaster, was indicted by the grand jury......