State v. Taylor
State v. Noah Taylor.
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
EaiRcloth, J.
The defendant was indicted for murder sand put on his trial on the' second “Wednesday of the term, ¡and the jury failed to agree at thé close of the week. His TIonor thereupon continued tire Court and kept the jury together until the following Monday, when a verdict of guilty was rendered and judgment pronounced. The. defendant ■made a motion to arrest the judgment, on the gound that His Honor had no authority to continue the Court and jury ¡after the end Of the second week,' which motion was disallowed.
He insists that Art. IV. § 12, of the Constitution, by amplication restricts the power of the Legislature to authorize the Judge below, on the trial of a capital case, to continue the Court after the end of the two weeks, as it attempted to do by an Act, C. C. P. § 397, Bat. Rev. ch. 33. § 108.
This precise question was considered in State v. Adair, 66 N. C. 298 , and, for the reasons there given, it was held that There was no such restriction in the Constitution.' He further insists, if there is no restriction as above claimed, there is no authority for the Legislature to authorize an extension of the Court beyond the two weeks. It would seem, that, if there is no constitutional restriction, the Legislature undoubtedly has the power to authorize the continuance of a Court, to meet the ends of justice in the trial of a ■capital felony. , , In addition to what is said in Adair’s case above, the'Act of 1830, Rev. Code, ch..31, § 16, enacted to meet the diffi *66 culty experienced'in Spier’.s case, giving, the Court power, on the trial of a capital case, to continue from day to day after; the expiration of the term to finish the trial &c. was in force’ at the adoption of the Constitution and is. not repealed or restricted therein. This Act not being digested or brought-forward in Battle’s Bevisal, is not repealed.
State v. Cunningham, 72 N.
C.
469 .
’ There is no. error. Let this be certified to the Court be•low, that further proceedings may be had according to law.
Per Curiam. ' Judgment afiirmecL
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 2 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.