Opinion

State v. . Berry

  • 190 N.C. 363
  • 130 S.E. 12
  • 1925 N.C. LEXIS 79
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Oct 28, 1925
Status
Published
Author
ClaeKSON
On the bench
ClaeKSON
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 87.4%

The opinion

ClaeKSON, J.

In the record of the case sent to this Court, it appears that the jury which tried defendant was composed of only ten men.

The Constitution of North Carolina, Art. I, sec. 13, provides: “No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court. The Legislature may, however, provide other means of trial for petty misdemeanors with the right of appeal.”

Nash, C. J.,

in

S. v. Moss,

47 N. C., p. 68, says: “These principles are dear to every freeman; they are his shield and buckler against wrong and oppression and lie at the foundation of civil liberty; they are declared to

be rights

of the citizens of North Carolina, and ought to be vigilantly guarded.”

Ashe, J.,

in

S. v. Stewart,

89 N. C., p. 564, says: “It is a fundamental principle of the common law, declared in ‘Magna Charta,’ and again in our Bill of Eights, that ‘no person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court.’ Art. I, sec. 13. The only exception to this is, where the Legislature may provide other means of trial for petty misdemeanors with the right of appeal — Proviso in same section.”

*364

In

S. v. Rogers,

162 N. C., p. 659,

Brown, J.,

says: “It is elementary that a jury, as understood at common law and as used in our Constitutions, Federal and State,, signifies twelve men duly impaneled in tbe case to be tried. A less number is not a jury.

Traction Co. v. Hof,

174 U. S., 1 .”

S. v. Holt,

90 N. C., 749 ;

S. v. Cutshall,

110 N. C., 538 ;

S. v. Wood,

175 N. C., 809 ;

Bartholomew v. Parrish,

186 N. C., 85 .

Tbe record proper “imports verity.”

S. v. Wheeler,

185 N. C., p. 670;

S. v. Palmore,

189 N. C., p. 538.

Waiver of certain privileges and rights was discussed recently by

Stacy, C. J.,

in

S. v. Hartsfield,

188 N. C., p. 357, and we need not repeat bere.

Tbe defendant waived nothing, but insisted, on bis rights, as tbe record disclosed. It appearing by tbe record that tbe defendant was tried and convicted by ten men, tbe conviction was improper and no judgment could be rendered. For tbe reason given, there must be a

New trial.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.