From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Liles

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1877
77 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1877)

Opinion

(June Term, 1877.)

Indictment — Disqualification of Juror.

Where an indictment was quashed upon the ground that one of the grand jurors who found the bill was a party to an action pending and at issue in the Superior Court: Held, not to be error. (Bat. Rev., ch. 17, sec. 229g.)

INDICTMENT for larceny, tried at Spring Term, 1877, of ANSON, before McKoy, J.

Attorney-General for the State.

No counsel for defendants.


The defendants moved to quash the indictment on the ground that one of the grand jurors who found the bill against them was disqualified (497) by Bat. Rev., ch. 17, sec. 229 (g), which is as follows: "If any of the jurors drawn have a suit pending and at issue in the Superior Court, the scrolls with their names must be returned into partition No. 1 of the jury box."

His Honor allowed the motion, and Pemberton, solicitor for the State, appealed.


The defendants were indicted, and on being called to answer the charge, moved to quash the indictment on the ground that one of the grand jurors who presented the bill, at the time he was drawn as juror had a suit pending and at issue in the Superior Court of the same county. The motion was allowed, and the solicitor appealed. We sustain the order of his Honor, and hold that the juror was disqualified simply because the law is so written. Bat. Rev., ch. 17, sec. 229 (g).

In such cases the objection must be taken in apt time, as was done in the present instance. S. v. Griffice, 74 N.C. 316.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Cited: S. v. Smith, 80 N.C. 411; S. v. Martin, 82 N.C. 674; S. v. Haywood, 94 N.C. 850.

(498)


Summaries of

State v. Liles

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jun 1, 1877
77 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1877)
Case details for

State v. Liles

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. MARTIN LILES ET ALS

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Jun 1, 1877

Citations

77 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1877)

Citing Cases

State v. Smith

Such juror is incompetent, and the defendant in a criminal action is not required to show affirmatively that…

State v. Martin

In a count for receiving stolen goods it is not necessary to aver from whom the goods were received. (State…