{
  "id": 8682851,
  "name": "STATE v. NANCY HONEYCUTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Honeycutt",
  "decision_date": "1876-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "392",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "74 N.C. 391"
    }
  ],
  "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": "66 N. C., 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277066
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/66/0309-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3253,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.422,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7779127685393767e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8349108384311209
    },
    "sha256": "5b2767469dbd42581232f31eb7560d42687c20a9818e5d8f15c50883f3619321",
    "simhash": "1:51aca9bbbb3108e7",
    "word_count": 603
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:08:39.099656+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. NANCY HONEYCUTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Peaeson, C. J.\nIn a Jefferson's case,\u201d 66 N. C., 309, it is declared to be the opinion of the court \u201c by the cases State v. Price, 63 N. C. Rep., 529; State v. Alman, 64 N. C. Rep., 364; State v. Baker, 65 N. C. Rep., 332, it is settled, that in a trial for a capital felony, for sufhoient cause the Judge may discharge the jury and hold the prisoner for another trial.\u201d\nThat principle being settled, no further discussion of the subject is called for.\nIn Jefferson S\u2019 case, sup., it is said, \u201c as the case was given 'to tiie jury on Tuesday of the second week of the term, we are inclined to the opinion that had his Honor remained at the court, until Saturday night (ready to instruct the jury) and then discharged them, the fact that the case had been with the jury four days, and that from declarations of jurors in the presence of the others in open court, before him, he was satisfied\u2019the jury would not agree, and that it was useless, and \u201c not necessary for the pui-poses of the case \u201d to continue the term longer, and had thereupon discharged the jury, there would have been no error.\u201d\nIn the case now before us, these conditions are all strictly complied with. The Judge is present during the entire term. The case had been with the jury for six days, and not four, as in the case supposed, and his Honor not content \u201c with the declarations of some of the jurors in the presence of each other in open court before him,\u201d pulls the jury on that question, and on this evidence finds, as a fact, that the jury could not agree, and orders a discharge of the jury, and that the prisoner he held for trial at the next term.\nThe supposed state of facts in J'/fft-r.son's case was fully considered by the members of the court, and although that is a dictum, or rather matter used for illustration, after full consultation, we now hold it to be the law of the land.\nIt follows the prisoner is not entitled to a discharge, and must stand another trial.\nThis will Le certified.\nPER C\u00fcRIAM. Venire de no >o.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Peaeson, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Buxbee ds Bvxbee. for defendant.",
      "Attorney General Uurgrooe, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. NANCY HONEYCUTT.\nWhere, on a trial for a capital felony, the jury has had the case for six days, and on Saturday of the second week of the term, they come into court, and being polled by his Honor, he finds as a fact that they cannot agree; Held, that the Judge below did not err in withdrawing a juror and directing a mistrial to be en'ered; and further, that the prisoner, on that account, was not entitled to be discharged.\n{Price's case, 63 N. 0. Rep. 629; State v. Allman, 64 N. C Rep. 364 j State v. Baker, 65 N- 0. Rep. 332, and Jefferson's case, 66 N. C. Rep. 309, cited and approved.)\nIndictment against the mother for killing her bastard child,, tried at the Fall Term, 1875, of the Superior Court of Yan-cey county, before his Honor, Judge Henry.\nThe case, after argument and the charge of his Honor, was given to the jury on Monday of the second week of the term. His Honor on Saturday, (six days,) polls the jury, and finds as a fact, that they are-unable to agree, he directs a juror to-be withdrawn and a mistrial entered.\nThe defendent- thereupon moves to be discharged, as being once put in jeopardy ; motion refused, whereupon defendant appeals.\nBuxbee ds Bvxbee. for defendant.\nAttorney General Uurgrooe, for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 401,
  "last_page_order": 402
}