State v. Tanner

Supreme Court of Vermont

State v. Tanner

111 A. 632, 94 Vt. 492, 1920 Vt. LEXIS 236

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedNovember 13, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A. 632 (State v. Tanner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Tanner, 111 A. 632, 94 Vt. 492, 1920 Vt. LEXIS 236 (Vt. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Watson, C. J.'

When the jury reported a disagreement there was nothing said by the court of a nature to coerce an agreement, nor as to what their verdict should be. The expense of a retrial, and the delay consequent thereon, were called to their attention only as a reason why they should give the evidence further consideration. Manifestly the jury so understood it, for after retiring for such purpose they returned to the court room and requested that the testimony of two certain witnesses be read by the stenographic reporter; and, on hearing such testimony read, the jury again retired, soon thereafter returning a verdict of guilty. We see nothing in the action of the court, of an improper nature, nor to differentiate the casé from that of State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 31 Atl. 845.

Judgment that there teas no error in the proceedings, and that the respondent take nothing by his exception. Let execution be done.

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

Watson, C. J.'

When the jury reported a disagreement there was nothing said by the court of a nature to coerce an agreement, nor as to what their verdict should be. The expense of a retrial, and the delay consequent thereon, were called to their attention only as a reason why they should give the evidence further consideration. Manifestly the jury so understood it, for after retiring for such purpose they returned to the court room and requested that the testimony of two certain witnesses be read by the stenographic reporter; and, on hearing such testimony read, the jury again retired, soon thereafter returning a verdict of guilty. We see nothing in the action of the court, of an improper nature, nor to differentiate the casé from that of State v. Gorham, 67 Vt. 365, 31 Atl. 845.

Judgment that there teas no error in the proceedings, and that the respondent take nothing by his exception. Let execution be done.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A. 632, 94 Vt. 492, 1920 Vt. LEXIS 236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tanner-vt-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack