{
  "id": 8662070,
  "name": "STATE v. OVERBY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Overby",
  "decision_date": "1900-10-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "514",
  "last_page": "516",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. 514"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3294,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.376,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.446063651887353e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2785482860197641
    },
    "sha256": "1db4b9c71a90ddb33be1a62b8e1daeb791a1330392796a13bf794a68622c6ef1",
    "simhash": "1:ca50c53e34f210f7",
    "word_count": 597
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:22.932964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. OVERBY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eueches, J.\nThis case comes before us upon objection of the defendant to the entry of the verdict of guilty. The defendant was indicted in two counts \u2014 one for burglariously entering the dwelling-house of one Green Reavis \u201cin the daytime,\u201d with the felonious intent to steal. The other count was for the larceny of money taken from said dwelling-house. It seems that the jury had trouble in coming to a verdict, returned into court several times, and reported that they had not agreed, and that they did not believe they would be able to agree, and asked what was to be done when one juror would not act or come to any conclusion. The Court then stated to them that it was the duty of each juror to act for himself, and indicate his finding by his vote, and directed them to retire again. In the course of a few hours the jury came into court again, and were asked if they had agreed on a verdict, when the foreman responded that they had. They were then asked what was their verdict, when the foreman responded, \u201cGuilty on both counts.\u201d The defendant then demanded that the jury should be polled on both counts, which was done, and 11 answered, \u201cGuilty on both counts.\u201d But one of the jury, by the name of James M. Watson, said: \u201cI don\u2019t know much about two counts. I agreed to find him guilty of taking the money.\u201d The Court then said to him: \u201cHow do you suppose he got the money?\u201d And the juror answered: \u201cI don\u2019t know very much about that. It was too long between drinks.\u201d The Court then ordered \u201ca verdict of guilty to be entered on the second count, for larceny.\u201d This verdict is not such a verdict as should be allowed to stand. It is not a unit \u2014 an agreement in the minds of the 12 jurors, concurring in the guilt of the defendant, which is necessary to constitute a verdict of guilty. It requires more than the simple \u201ctaking of property\u201d to constitute larceny. It must be taken and carried away with the felonious intent which is the gravamen of the offense. The verdict of the juror Watson is lacking in this material element, and vitiates the verdict. But we can not close this opinion without saying that, if the juror Watson was not punished for contempt, it must have been owing to the great leniency of the presiding Judge. Not that he failed to agree with his fellows upon a verdict of guilty, for in this matter he must be allowed to exercise his own judgment, without restraint from the Court or anyone else; but for the manner in which he demeaned himself, and for the impertinent answer he made t\u00f3 a pertinent question asked him by the Court \u2014 \u201cthat it had been too long between drinks.\u201d There was error in ordering the verdict of guilty to be entered against the defendant, for which he is entitled to a new trial.\nError. New trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eueches, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb. V. Wwiser, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "Pittman & Kerr, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. OVERBY.\n(October 30, 1900.)\nVerdict \u2014 Jury\u2014Poll\u2014Larceny\u2014Burglary.\nWhere, upon a poll o\u00ed the jury, a juror responds, \u201cI agreed to find him guilty of taking the money/\u2019 it is error for Court to order verdict of guilty of larceny entered against defendant.\nINdicticeNT against Amos Overby, heard by Judge J. W. Bowman and a jury, at Eall Term, 1900, of VaNce Superior 'Court. Erom a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the \u25a0defendant appealed.\nZeb. V. Wwiser, Attorney-General, for the State.\nPittman & Kerr, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0514-01",
  "first_page_order": 544,
  "last_page_order": 546
}