{
  "id": 2092660,
  "name": "STATE vs. OWEN MERCER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mercer",
  "decision_date": "1872-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "266",
  "last_page": "267",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 N.C. 266"
    }
  ],
  "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 Dev. & Bat. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dev. & Bat.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275110
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/19/0196-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 3243,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.413,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07495243931209888
    },
    "sha256": "2c3d554c8646488706af484a6b8eab005d6e630a43cf928b8cddef786b9fd661",
    "simhash": "1:ad377482cdce5227",
    "word_count": 561
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:25.131400+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE vs. OWEN MERCER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Boyden, J.\nThe only question raised in the record is, as to the challenge of a juror on the part of the State, which chalwas allowed, and the defendant excepted.\nThe record states that a juror was challenged for canse, and was asked if lie was opposed to capital punishment; the juror replied, \u201c that ho preferred to send a man to the penitentiary, instead of hanging him. Thought the law ought to be changed and send all to the penitentiary for murder instead of hanging them.\u2019\u2019 When questioned by the Court, he made the same reply \u2014 said he preferred the penitentiary to hanging. This decision of his Honor cannot avail the prisoner for several reasons. Eirst, that this was a challenge propter affectum, although the case states that it was a challenge for cause. When a challenge is made for unindifferoney, the Court tries the fact, unless one of the parties demands triers, and of the fact found, either by the Court, or the triers there is no review. State v. Benton, 2 Dev. & Bat. 196.\nAgain, it does not appear, whether this juror was one of the original panncl or of the special venire, nor does it appear that the State had made any peremptory challenge, nor that that the prisoner, had exhausted his challenges. So that the State had first the right to direct this juror to stand aside until the pannel was perused, and the State likewise had the right to challenge this juror peremptorily. So that his Honor, having allowed the challenge for unindifferency, could have done the prisoner no injury, as the State, in case the challenge had been disallowed, might have challenged the juror peremptorily. State v. Benton, supra.\nThere is no error. This will be certified, in order that the Court may proceed to judgment according to law.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Boyden, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the prisoner."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE vs. OWEN MERCER.\nWhere upon a trial for a capital offence a juror was challenged, and the question was asked, \u201c whether or not he was opposed to capital punishment, and he answered that he preferred sending a man to the penitentiary for murder, and thought the law ought to be changed;\u201d Held, that this was a challenge propter affectum.\nWhen a challenge is made for unindifferoney, the Court triGS the fact, unless one of the parties demands triers, and of the fact found, either by the Court or the triers, there is no review.\n5State v. Benton, 2 Dev.'& Bat. 19G, cited and approved.]\nThis was an indictment for murder, fried before Watts, J., at Spring Term, 1872, of Edgecombe Superior Court.\nA j uror was challenged by the State for cause, as the case states, and asked if ho was opposed to capital punishment. He replied, that lie preferred to send a man to the penitentiary instead of hanging him \u2014 thought the law ought to be changed, and send all to the penitentiary for murder instead of hanging them. When questioned by prisoner\u2019s counsel, whether or not he would give the prisoner a fair and impartial trial, he said he would. When questioned by the Court, made the same reply ; said lie preferred penitentiary to hanging. Whereupon the Court sustained the challenge. Prisoner\u2019s counsel excepted. There was a verdict of guilty. Rule for new trial. Rule discharged. Judgment and appeal.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the prisoner."
  },
  "file_name": "0266-01",
  "first_page_order": 276,
  "last_page_order": 277
}