State v. Waterhouse
Tennessee Supreme Court
The proper interpretation of the constitutional and common-law provision, “ that no person shall, for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” admits of doubt.
Read the full summary
The proper interpretation of the constitutional and common-law provision, “ that no person shall, for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,” admits of doubt. The weight of authority is, that a court, in the exercise of a sound discretion, may discharge . a jury, even in a capital case, and that the defendant may be again tried. [Qualified by Mahala ». State, 10 Y. 641, which is itself commented on doubtingly in Morgan ». State, 8 Sn. 478, citing also this case. And see State ». Connor, 5 Cold. 313, where this case is cited; Ward ». State, 1 Hum. 253; Walton ». State, 3…
1Opinion of the CourtCrabb, J.
Were this a new question, I should be unprepared to, say, what I now feel it my duty ‘to determine, in deference to- irresistible authority. Great difficulty would be experienced by me in arriving at the conclusion, which has now generally obtained, as to the proper interpretation of the constitutional and common-law provision, “• that no person shall, for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”
According to the common acceptation of the expression, an individual would certainly be put in jeopardy, or, in other words, in danger, when arraigned before the proper tribunal,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- People v. GoodwinNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Commonwealth v. BowdenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hume Bros. v. MossIllinois Supreme Court · 1872