TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Epps

State v. Robert Epps.

State v. Epps, 76 N.C. 55 (1877)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 5, 1877
Judges
Reads
Citations
76 N.C. 55
Headnotes
In criminal (rials nothing shall be done to the prejudice of the defendant without his presence; though the rule may b.e relaxed in trials for misdemeanors, by the consent of the defendant.
Summary
Criminal Trials — Presence of Prisoner. INDICTMENT for larceny, tried at Eall Term, 1876, of Edge-combe Superior Court, before Moore, J. The jury, under the instructions of the Court, rendered a. verdict of guilty, which was received by the Clerk during-the recess of the Court, in the absence of the prisoner and without any instructions from the Court; whereupon the* counsel for the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment, which, motion was allowed by the Court, and the Solicitor for th& State appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Reads

Reads, J.

The rule is, that in a criminal trial, nothing shall be done to the prejudice of the defendant, without hi& presence.

The exception is, that in a criminal trial for a misdemeanor„ the rule may be relaxed, by the consent of the defendant.

*56 An- instance of such exception has been, where the Court bakes a recess, the jury, m'ay render its verdict to the Clerk, it having been agreed before the recess by the defendant in the presence of the Court, that so it might be and the Court Raving so instructed the Clerk.

But even this exception, or the like, ought to be sparingly •exercised; because it best comports with decency and order, that everything should be done in open Court, in the presence of the defendant and before the public.

In the case before us, the verdict was rendered to the ■Clerk during the recess of the Court, without instruction from the Court, and in the absence of the defendant and without his consent.

It was clearly the right ot the defendant to have the verdict set aside upon his motion. And it was -within the power of the Court to set it aside mero motu.

There is no error. Let this be certified, &c.

PeR OüRIÁm. Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1883–1884: 21887–1888: 11889–1890: 11891–1892: 11907–1908: 11925–1926: 11927–1928: 21949–1950: 118832026peak 1883 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Kelly2 S.E. 185 (N.C. 1887)
  2. State v. Newsome143 S.E. 187 (N.C. 1928) · Concurrence
  3. State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht36 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1949)
  4. Sherrod v. State47 So. 554 (Miss. 1908)
  5. State v. Jacobs12 S.E. 962 (N.C. 1890)
  6. State v. Paylor89 N.C. 539 (1883)

Most recent

  1. State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht36 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1949)
  2. State v. Newsome143 S.E. 187 (N.C. 1928) · Concurrence
  3. State v. Bazemore137 S.E. 132 (N.C. 1927)
  4. Cole v. State1926 OK CR 297, 248 P. 347
  5. Sherrod v. State47 So. 554 (Miss. 1908)
  6. State v. Austin13 S.E. 219 (N.C. 1891)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list