State v. Stoughton
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indictment for burglary. Trial by jury, September Term, 1878, Pierpoint, C. J., presiding. The facts relative to the question decided are stated by the court. There were other points of exception, but as they were not considered, they are not stated. Yerdict of guilty as to all the respondents. The right of peremptory challenge exists at common law. It is merely regulated by statute.
Read the full summary
Indictment for burglary. Trial by jury, September Term, 1878, Pierpoint, C. J., presiding. The facts relative to the question decided are stated by the court. There were other points of exception, but as they were not considered, they are not stated. Yerdict of guilty as to all the respondents. The right of peremptory challenge exists at common law. It is merely regulated by statute. It is a personal right; and where several are tried jointly, their rights are in no way abridged, unless expressly waived. 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 436 ; 1 Bishop Orim-Proced. s. 967 ; United States v. Mar chant, 12…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Royce, J.
The respondents were jointly indicted for the crime of burglary. They severally pleaded not guilty. The State proposed to try them together, but George Stoughton and Gorrey requested the court to allow, them to be tried separately from the other respondents. The State objected, and insisted upon their all being tried together. Upon the court suggesting that if a separate trial was granted to them they could not probably all be tried at that term, they withdrew their request, and all the respondents were put on trial jointly. When the jurors…
2Cited by5 opinions
- State v. NoakesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- State v. FournierSupreme Court of Vermont · 1896
- State v. MeakerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881
- State v. DureinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1883
- People v. CarusoMichigan Supreme Court · 1912