{
  "id": 8683773,
  "name": "STATE vs. SPENCER S. REEVES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reeves",
  "decision_date": "1847-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "19",
  "last_page": "20",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "8 Ired. 19"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. 19"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Ired. 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        8685939
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/24/0101-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3110,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20791385907054813
    },
    "sha256": "2f41c0338376fed3320d01104ee55353d1acfb061b42267493cb00a3e4ca7fd1",
    "simhash": "1:b51a4148f4aa1347",
    "word_count": 553
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:50:05.193463+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. SPENCER S. REEVES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ruffin, C. J.\nThere is no force in either of the reasons in arrest. That respecting the tense, was taken and over-ruled in Martin\u2019s case, 2 Ired. 101. As to the other point, the record is right, in its present form. The enquiry, how the prisoner will be tried, which tenders to him an election as to the mode, had its origin; doubtless, in his right anciently to a trial by jury or by battle. But, though still made, in deference to long usage, that en-quiry, and the answer to it are held, at this day, an unmeaning ceremony; as we have but one method of proceeding for capital felonies, which is by indictment and trial by jury, indeed, although the old forms are adhered to in England, in the oral proceedings in the arraignment of the accused and taking his plea, yet the only note of them made at the time, is a memorandum by the clerk on the indictment \u2014 \u201cpo. se.\u201d \u2014 meaning, that the prisoner put himself (ponit se) upon the country. 1 Chit. C. L. 416. And in the best formularies of engrossed records, no notice is taken of any part of that ceremony, subsequent to the plea ; but they merely state, that \u201cbeing demanded concerning the premises, &c., how he will acquit himself thereof, he saith, that he is not guilty thereof and thereof, for good and evil, he puts himself upon the countryand then, after an entry of the similiter, (which, indeed, may be omitted, without error,) there follows immediately the award of the venire. 4 Bl. Com. 340, Appendix 3. Whether regard be had, then, either to the substance or the forms of the proceeding, it is only necessary, that there should be a plea of not guilty, tendering a proper issue to the country.\nIt must, therefore, be certified to the Superior Court, that there was no error in passing judgment of death on the prisoner, to the end that it may be carried into execution.\nPer Curiam. Ordered to be certified accordingly.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ruffin, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Morehead, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. SPENCER S. REEVES.\nWhere the record of the proceedings on an indictment for murder, uses the past tense, instead of the present, this is not error\nWhere a prisoner, indicted for murder, upon his arraignment pleads not gnilty, \u201cand for his trial puts himself on Ms country,\u201d this is sufficient without his saying \u201c on God and Ms country.\u201d\nThe case of State v. Martin, 2 lied. 101, cited and approved.\nAppeal from the Superior Court of Law of Guilford County, at the Fall Term, 1847, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding.\nThe case was this. After a conviction of murder, the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment; and, after the motion was overruled, and sentence passed on him, he appealed. The motion was founded on two reasons. The one, that in several instances the proceedings are stated in the record, in the past, instead of the present, tense. The other, that in that part of the record, which contains the arraignment, and plea of the prisoner, it is stated, \u201cand thereof, and for his trial, the said Spencer S. Reeves, puts himself upon the countrywhereas it should have been, that the prisoner said, that he would \u201c be tried by God and the Country.\u201d\nAttorney General, for the State.\nMorehead, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0019-01",
  "first_page_order": 27,
  "last_page_order": 28
}