State v. . Brogden

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Brogden

16 S.E. 170, 111 N.C. 656

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 16 S.E. 170 (State v. . Brogden) 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. . Brogden, 16 S.E. 170, 111 N.C. 656 (N.C. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.:

It rests in the discretion of the trial judge to order a special venire in capital cases, and likewise determine its number. The Code, § 1738. It is equally in his discretion subsequently to amend the order so as to increase or decrease the number of such venire. In this case certainly the prisoner had no cause to complain, as the jury was obtained from the regular panel and the reduced venire without exhausting the prisoner’s peremptory challenges. State v. Hensley, 94 N. C., 1021; State v. Pritchett, 106 N. C, 667. But had the venire proved insufficient, the statute (The Code, § 1739) provides that the Judge, in his discretion, could have ordered a further venire to be drawn from the box, or summoned by the Sheriff.

The practice of drawing the special venire from the box is-one to be commended and is favored by the Courts. It is a wise and safe course which trial courts will usually do well to observe. The act authorizing it {The Code, § 1739) was passed by the Legislature to remove the occasion for scandals whichr at times, had crept into the administration of justice in trials *658 for capital offences. There may be instances in which, in the exercise of a wise discretion, the Court need not observe it; hence, the act was not made mandatory.

We see no ground for the objection to the admission of the dying declarations of the deceased. The ruling of the Judge was fully «justified by the evidence. State v. Williams, 67 N. C., 12; State v. Mills, 91 N. C., 581.

Per Curiam. No Error.

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

Clark, J.:

It rests in the discretion of the trial judge to order a special venire in capital cases, and likewise determine its number. The Code, § 1738. It is equally in his discretion subsequently to amend the order so as to increase or decrease the number of such venire. In this case certainly the prisoner had no cause to complain, as the jury was obtained from the regular panel and the reduced venire without exhausting the prisoner’s peremptory challenges. State v. Hensley, 94 N. C., 1021; State v. Pritchett, 106 N. C, 667. But had the venire proved insufficient, the statute (The Code, § 1739) provides that the Judge, in his discretion, could have ordered a further venire to be drawn from the box, or summoned by the Sheriff.

The practice of drawing the special venire from the box is-one to be commended and is favored by the Courts. It is a wise and safe course which trial courts will usually do well to observe. The act authorizing it {The Code, § 1739) was passed by the Legislature to remove the occasion for scandals whichr at times, had crept into the administration of justice in trials *658 for capital offences. There may be instances in which, in the exercise of a wise discretion, the Court need not observe it; hence, the act was not made mandatory.

We see no ground for the objection to the admission of the dying declarations of the deceased. The ruling of the Judge was fully «justified by the evidence. State v. Williams, 67 N. C., 12; State v. Mills, 91 N. C., 581.

Per Curiam. No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 S.E. 170, 111 N.C. 656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brogden-nc-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack