Bird Woods v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Bird Woods v. Commonwealth

11 S.E. 799, 86 Va. 933, 1890 Va. LEXIS 63

CourtSupreme Court of Virginia

DecidedJune 19, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 11 S.E. 799 (Bird Woods v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bird Woods v. Commonwealth, 11 S.E. 799, 86 Va. 933, 1890 Va. LEXIS 63 (Va. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Lewis, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Many of the questions arising in this case are disposed of by what was said in Early’s case.- Here, as in that case, there was a motion, when the case was called for trial, to set aside the arraignment and for leave to withdraw the plea of not guilty, entered upon the arraignment at a former term, and to plead in abatement. But the motion was overruled, and, as we think,, correctly, for reasons given in the Early case. So, also, for reasons given in that case, we are of opinion that there [934]*934was no error in overruling the prisoner’s motion for a continuance in the present case.

It is also assigned as error that the verdict was not signed. But this was not necessary. The verdict was duly delivered in court and recorded, and nothing more was required. 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. (2d ed.), sees. 1001-1016.

In this ease, as in Nannie Woods’ case, just disposed of, the principal witness for the commonwealth was George Early, an accomplice, and for the same reasons given in the opinion in that case, we are of opinion tjiat the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, and that the judgment, sentencing the prisoner to death, must be affirmed.

JUDMENT AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Lewis, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Many of the questions arising in this case are disposed of by what was said in Early’s case.- Here, as in that case, there was a motion, when the case was called for trial, to set aside the arraignment and for leave to withdraw the plea of not guilty, entered upon the arraignment at a former term, and to plead in abatement. But the motion was overruled, and, as we think,, correctly, for reasons given in the Early case. So, also, for reasons given in that case, we are of opinion that there [934]*934was no error in overruling the prisoner’s motion for a continuance in the present case.

It is also assigned as error that the verdict was not signed. But this was not necessary. The verdict was duly delivered in court and recorded, and nothing more was required. 1 Bish. Crim. Proc. (2d ed.), sees. 1001-1016.

In this ease, as in Nannie Woods’ case, just disposed of, the principal witness for the commonwealth was George Early, an accomplice, and for the same reasons given in the opinion in that case, we are of opinion tjiat the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial, and that the judgment, sentencing the prisoner to death, must be affirmed.

JUDMENT AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 S.E. 799, 86 Va. 933, 1890 Va. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bird-woods-v-commonwealth-va-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack