State v. . Crawford

Superior Court of North Carolina

State v. . Crawford

3 N.C. 298

Superior Court of North Carolina·Decided July 5, 1804·Published

Opinion

A new trial is in the discretion of the Court, who will not grant it unless dissatisfied with the verdict. Here was a full defense and a full examination of the evidence, and it was very sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant a verdict. This is not like the case of a juror who had expressed ill-will towards the defendant before being impaneled; for there, though the verdict was not incompatible with the evidence, there might be reason to suspect the trial had not been impartial.

NOTE. — See S. v. Greenwood, 2 N.C. 141, and the notes thereto.

Cited: S. v. Davis, 80 N.C. 414; S. v. Boon, ib., 465; S. v. Davis,126 N.C. 1010; S. v. Council, 129 N.C. 517; S. v. Maultsby, 130 N.C. 665;S. v. Upton, 170 N.C. 771; Wilson v. Batchelor, 182 N.C. 95.

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

A new trial is in the discretion of the Court, who will not grant it unless dissatisfied with the verdict. Here was a full defense and a full examination of the evidence, and it was very sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant a verdict. This is not like the case of a juror who had expressed ill-will towards the defendant before being impaneled; for there, though the verdict was not incompatible with the evidence, there might be reason to suspect the trial had not been impartial.

NOTE. — See S. v. Greenwood, 2 N.C. 141, and the notes thereto.

Cited: S. v. Davis, 80 N.C. 414; S. v. Boon, ib., 465; S. v. Davis,126 N.C. 1010; S. v. Council, 129 N.C. 517; S. v. Maultsby, 130 N.C. 665;S. v. Upton, 170 N.C. 771; Wilson v. Batchelor, 182 N.C. 95.

State v. . Crawford, 3 N.C. 298 (N.C. Ct. App. 1804).

Pincite

3 N.C. 298 (State v. . Crawford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related