State v. . Boger

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Boger

163 S.E. 877, 202 N.C. 702, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 194

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 11, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 163 S.E. 877 (State v. . Boger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Boger, 163 S.E. 877, 202 N.C. 702, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 194 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

CoNNOK, J.

The right of a defendant in a criminal action tried in a court of this State, to have the jurors polled by the judge or under his direction, when a request for such poll is made in apt time, after an adverse verdict has been returned by the jurors, was recognized by this Court in S. v. Young, 77 N. C., 498. In that case it was said: “We think a defendant on trial in a criminal case (and of course the solicitor for the State) has the right to have the jury polled, whether it be an oral or a sealed verdict. He has no right to say in what manner it shall be done, nor to propound any question, but simply to know that the verdict given by the foreman is the verdict of each juror, and we think it error in the court to deny it when demanded.” The right is founded *704 oil tbe constitutional guarantee tbat “no person shall be convicted of any crime but by tbe unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court.”

In Lipscomb v. Cox, 195 N. C., 502, 142 S. E., 779, it is said: “Tbe predominant purpose of tbe poll is to ascertain if tbe verdict as tendered by tbe jury is tbe 'unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court,’ as prescribed by tbe Constitution, Art. I, sec. 13, for criminal cause.” In tbe opinion in tbat case, S. v. Young, supra, is cited witb approval by Brogden, J.

In tbe instant case, tbe defendant was denied bis right to bave tbe .jurors polled by tbe judge' or under’ bis direction. Tbe request of tbe judge tbat all -the jurors wbo returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in this case, stand up, was not a compliance witb tbe demand of tbe defendant, made in apt time, tbat tbe jurors be polled, man for man. Tbe defendant*was entitled as a matter of right to know whether each juror assented to tbe verdict announced by tbe juror wbo undertook to answer for tbe jury, and to tbat end be bad tbe right to insist tbat a specific question be addressed to and answered by each juror in open court, as to whether be assented to said verdict. To poll tbe jury means to ascertain by questions addressed to tbe jurors, individually, whether each juror assented and still assents to tbe verdict tendered to tbe court. 16 O. J., p. 1098, sec. 2576. In this jurisdiction each party to an action, civil or criminal, has tbe right to bave tbe jury polled, and a denial of this right, when demanded in apt time, is error. Lipscomb v. Cox, 105 N. C., 502, 142 S. E., 779, In re Sugg’s Will, 194 N. C., 638, 140 S. E., 604. For error in denial of this right in tbe instant case, tbe defendant is entitled to a

New trial.

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

CoNNOK, J.

The right of a defendant in a criminal action tried in a court of this State, to have the jurors polled by the judge or under his direction, when a request for such poll is made in apt time, after an adverse verdict has been returned by the jurors, was recognized by this Court in S. v. Young, 77 N. C., 498. In that case it was said: “We think a defendant on trial in a criminal case (and of course the solicitor for the State) has the right to have the jury polled, whether it be an oral or a sealed verdict. He has no right to say in what manner it shall be done, nor to propound any question, but simply to know that the verdict given by the foreman is the verdict of each juror, and we think it error in the court to deny it when demanded.” The right is founded *704 oil tbe constitutional guarantee tbat “no person shall be convicted of any crime but by tbe unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court.”

In Lipscomb v. Cox, 195 N. C., 502, 142 S. E., 779, it is said: “Tbe predominant purpose of tbe poll is to ascertain if tbe verdict as tendered by tbe jury is tbe 'unanimous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open court,’ as prescribed by tbe Constitution, Art. I, sec. 13, for criminal cause.” In tbe opinion in tbat case, S. v. Young, supra, is cited witb approval by Brogden, J.

In tbe instant case, tbe defendant was denied bis right to bave tbe .jurors polled by tbe judge' or under’ bis direction. Tbe request of tbe judge tbat all -the jurors wbo returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter in this case, stand up, was not a compliance witb tbe demand of tbe defendant, made in apt time, tbat tbe jurors be polled, man for man. Tbe defendant*was entitled as a matter of right to know whether each juror assented to tbe verdict announced by tbe juror wbo undertook to answer for tbe jury, and to tbat end be bad tbe right to insist tbat a specific question be addressed to and answered by each juror in open court, as to whether be assented to said verdict. To poll tbe jury means to ascertain by questions addressed to tbe jurors, individually, whether each juror assented and still assents to tbe verdict tendered to tbe court. 16 O. J., p. 1098, sec. 2576. In this jurisdiction each party to an action, civil or criminal, has tbe right to bave tbe jury polled, and a denial of this right, when demanded in apt time, is error. Lipscomb v. Cox, 105 N. C., 502, 142 S. E., 779, In re Sugg’s Will, 194 N. C., 638, 140 S. E., 604. For error in denial of this right in tbe instant case, tbe defendant is entitled to a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 S.E. 877, 202 N.C. 702, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boger-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack