46 and the jury have separated, but it must do so properly may accept it as such.53 [2610] d. After Discharge and Separation of Jury. As a general rule the jury cannot be recalled to amend a verdict after they have returned it, have been discharged, and have separated;54 but it has been held that this may be done if they are still in the court room. 55 [§ 2611] e. Venire de Novo.56 Where a verdict, either general or special, is so bad or defective that no judgment can be rendered thereon, or where it finds no fact from which a legal conclusion as to the guilt of accused can be deduced, it may be set aside and a venire de novo awarded.57 [§ 2612] 5. Entry and Record. The conviction of one tried for crime is accomplished by the verState, 38 Tex. Cr. 69, 41 SW 611; Trent v. State, 31 Tex. Cr. 251, 20 SW 547; Robinson v. State, 23 Tex. A. 315, 4 SW 904; Taylor v. State, 14 Tex. A. 340. Effect of amendment by jury. Where the jury reconsider their verdict and alter it, the amended verdict is the real verdict of the jury,52 and the court State, 17 Ga. A. 348, 86 SE 782. Ind.-Pehlman v. State, 115 Ind. 131, 17 NE 270; McGregg v. State, 4 Blackf. 101. Iowa.-State v. Novak, 109 Iowa 717, 79 NW 465. Kan.-State v. Carrithers, 79 Kan. 401, 99 P 614; State v. Langley, 8 Kan. A. 815, 57 P 556. Ky.-Williams v. Com., 140 Ky. 34, 130 SW 807; Denham v. Com., 119 Ky. 508, 84 SW 538, 27 KyL 171; Crockett V. Com., 100 Ky. 389, 38 SW 676, 18 KyL 838. La.-State V. Brannon, 133 La. 1027, 63 S 507; State v. Smith, 104 La. 464, 29 S 20; State v. Keasley, 50 La. Ann. 761, 23 S 900; State v. Harris, 39 La. Ann. 1105, 3 S 344; State V. Gilkie, 35 La. Ann. 53; State v. Disch, 34 La. Ann. 1134; State V. Jessie, 30 La. Ann. 1170; State v. Clifton, 30 La. Ann. 951; State v. Sales, 30 La. Ann. 916; State v. Lafleur, Mann. 'Unrep. Cas. 292. Md.-Hechter v. State, 94 Md. 423, 50 A 1041, 56 LRA 457; Ford v. State, 12 Md. 514. Miss.-Thompson v. State, 88 Miss. 223, 40 S 545. Mo.-State V. Sartino, 216 Mo. 408, 115 SW 1015; State v. Miles, 199 Mo. 530, 98 SW 25. Mont. In re Gomez, 52 Mont. 189, 156 P 1078. N. J.-State v. Overton, 85 N. J. L. 287, 88 A 689; State v. Gonneion, 68 N. J. L. 429, 53 A 701. N. Y.-Peo. v. Graves, 5 Park. Cr. 134; Nelson v. Peo., 5 Park. Cr. 39 [aff 23 N. Y. 293]; Peo. v. Bush, 3 Park. Cr. 552. N. C.-State v. Bagley, 158 N. C. 608, 73 SE 995; State v. McKay, 150 N. C. 813, 63 SE 1059; State v. Godwin, 138 N. C. 582, 50 SE 277; State V. Bishop, 73 N. C. 44; State v. Arrington, 7 N. C. 571. Oh.-Heller v. State, 23 Oh. St. 582; Hurley v. State, 4 Oh. Cir. Ct. 425, 2 Oh. Cir. Dec. 630. Okl.-Steudle v. Terr., 19 Okl. 492, 91 P 1024; Oelke v. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 49, 133 P 1140; Rea v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 366, 118 P 815. Pa.-Com. v. Nicely, 130 Pa. 261, 18 A 737; Com. v. Huston, 46 Pa. Super. 172 [aff 232 Pa. 209, 81 A 1135]. Porto Rico.-Peo. v. Otero, 4 Porto Rico 55. S. C.-State v. Daniel, 77 S. C. 53, 57 SE 639; State v. Anderson, 24 S. C. 109; State v. Baldwin, 14 S. C. 135; State V. Corley, 13 S. C. 1; State v. Bradley, 43 S. C. L. 168; State v. Motley, 41 S. C. L. Tenn.-Waddle v. State, 112 Tenn. 556, 82 SW 827. 327. Tex.-Alston v. State, 41 Tex. 39; Williams v. State, 78 Tex. Cr. 647, 182 SW 335; Gould v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. 421, 147 SW 247; Bailey v. State, 65 Tex. Cr. 1, 144 SW 996; Day v. State, 62 Tex. Cr. 527, 138 SW 123; Jones v. State, 54 Tex. Cr. 507, 113 SW 761; Stone V. State, 47 Tex. Cr. 575, 85 SW 808; Hopkins V. State, (Cr.) 50 SW 381; Rocha V. Va.-Burton v. Com., 109 Va. 800, 63 SE 464; Nemo v. Com., 2 Gratt. (42 Va.) 558. W. Va.-State v. Davis, 74 W. Va. 657, 82 SE 525; State v. Cobbs, 40 W. Va. 718, 22 SE 310; State v. Davis, 31 W. Va. 390, 7 SE 24. Wis.-State v. Clementson, 69 Wis. 628, 35 NW 56. Eng.-Reg. v. Yeadon, 9 Cox C. C. 91; Rex v. Crisp, 28 T. L. R. 296. [a] Reason for rule. "It is essential to the promptness and certainty of the administration of justice that the courts shall have the power to direct the jury to correct mere formal defects in verdicts, and advise them of defects in substance and send them back to further consider the case, with proper instructions as to the form of their verdict in case they acquit or convict the defendant." Com. v. Huston, 46 Pa. Super. 172, 219 [aff 232 Pa. 209, 81 A 1135]. [b] It is the safer practice to send the jury to their room when necessary to amend their verdict as to any matter of substance. Burton v. Com., 109 Va. 800, 63 SE 464. [c] When a verdict is incongruous or inconsistent, it is proper for the trial judge to refuse to receive it, and to send the jury back for further deliberation. Turbaville v. State, 58 Ga. 545. [d] Special verdict.-If the case is taken out of the statute by a finding of facts in a special verdict, it is error to instruct on the law and to direct the jury to reconsider their verdict. Duncan v. State, 49 Miss. 331. 46. Pehlman V. State, 115 Ind. 131, 17 NE 270; Hechter v. State, 94 Md. 429, 50 A 1041, 56 LRA 457; Peo. v. Duffek, 163 Mich. 196, 128 NW 245, 31 LRANS 1005; Steudle v. Terr., 19 Okl. 492, 91 P 1024. But compare Koch v. State, 126 Wis. 470, 106 NW 531, 3 LRANS 1086, 5 Ann Cas 389 (holding that where, on a trial for robbery and larceny from the person the jury found a sealed verdict, separated, and returned the verdict into court the following morning, and the verdict found accused guilty of larceny, it was a nullity, and the court could not permit the jury to amend it so as to make it a verdict of guilty of larceny from the person). 47. Peo. v. Lee Yune Chong, 94 Cal. 379, 29 P 776; Nemo v. Com., 2 Gratt. (43 Va.) 558. 48. Ala.-Gaines V. State, 146 Ala. 16, 41 S 865; State v. Underwood, 2 Ala. 744. Ark.-Hamer v. State, 104 Ark. 606, 150 SW 142. Fla.-Evans v. State, 68 Fla. 79, 66 S 421; Bryant v. State, 34 Fla. 291, 16 S 177. Iowa.-Orton 140. V. State, 4 Greene N. C.-State v. Godwin, 138 N. C. 582, 50 SE 277. S. C.-State v. Corley, 13 S. C. 1. Va. Sledd v. Com., 19 Gratt. (60 Va.) 813. After discharge and separation of jury see infra § 2610. 49. State v. Weeks, 23 Or. 3, 34 P 1095; Peo. v. Alfonso, 14 Porto Rico 772; State v. Baldwin, 14 S. C. 135. 50. Gianino v. State, 183 Ind. 199, 108 NE 579. 51. State v. Arrington, 7 N. C. 571. But compare Reg. v. Vodden, 6 Cox C. C. 226 (holding that where one of the jurors, by mistake, delivered a verdict of "not guilty," which was heard and taken down by the clerk, and the prisoner discharged from the dock, but other jurors immediately called attention to the mistake, and the prisoner was brought back, the right verdict of "guilty" could then be taken). 52. Com. v. Huston, 46 Pa. Super. 172 [aff 232 Pa. 209, 81 A 1135]; Reg. v. Meany, 9 Cox C. C. 231. 53. Gianino v. State, 183 Ind. 199, 108 NE 579; State v. Novak, 109 Iowa 717, 79 NW 465. 54. Ala.-Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325. Cal.-Peo. v. Lee Yune Chong, 94 Cal. 379, 29 P 776. Ga.-Wells v. State, 116 Ga. 87, 42 SE 390. Ill. Farley v. Peo., 138 Ill. 97, 27 NE 927; Williams v. Peo., 44 Ill. 478. Mo.-State v. McBride, 19 Mo. 239. N. Y.-Peo. v. Graves, 5 Park. Cr. 134. Oh.-Sargent v. State, 11 Oh. 472; Helmerking v. State, 1 Oh. Dec. (Reprint) 444, 10 WestLJ 66. Okl.-Petitti v. State, 2 Okl. Cr. 131, 100 P 1122. Or.-State v. Weeks, 23 Or. 3, 34 P 1095. S. C.-State v. Dawkins, 32 S. C. 17, 10 SE 772. Tex.-Coleman v. State, 75 Tex. Cr. 66, 170 SW 150; Essery v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 414, 163 SW 17; Ellis v. State, 27 Tex. A. 190, 11 SW 111. W. Va.-State v. Cobbs, 40 W. Va. 718, 22 SE 310. Wis.-Allen v. State, 85 Wis. 22, 54 NW 999. 55. Ala. Cunningham v. State, 14 Ala. A. 1, 69 S 982. Ark.-Levells v. State, 32 Ark. 585. Ga.-Jackson V. State, 45 Ga. 198. Ind.-Quinn v. State, 123 Ind. 59, 23 NE 977. Ky. Denham v. Com., 119 Ky. 508, 84 SW 538, 27 KyL 171; Taggart v. Com., 104 Ky. 301, 46 SW 674, 20 KyL 493. 56. Waiver of right to move for venire de novo see infra § 2613. 57. Lawrence v. Peo., 2 Ill. 414; Arnburg v. Peo., 68 Ill. A. 80; Kendall v. State, 183 Ind. 162, 105 NE 899; Dolan v. State, 122 Ind. 141, 23 NE 761; Merrick v. State, 63 Ind. 327; Marcus v. State, 26 Ind. 101; State v. Yount, 110 N. C. 597, 15 SE 231; State v. Bray, 89 N. C. 480; State v. Wallace, 25 N. C. 195; Charleston v. Gadsden, 42 S. C. L. 180. See also infra § 2703. diet, and not upon the entry of judgment;58 and it is, as a rule, the recorded verdict, and not the verdict as originally returned by the jury, which will be taken as the true finding.59 But it has been held that a verdict indorsed on the indictment by the jury will be accepted in preference to the verdict as recorded by the clerk, if there is a variance between them.60 61 The verdict, whether oral or in writing, and whether of acquittal or conviction, should be recorded before the jury are discharged. But a written verdict is not invalidated by the failure of the clerk to record it before reading it to the jury and inquiring if it is their verdict.62 Sufficiency of record. The record should consist of a note on the minutes of the verdict as rendered, and a statement that it was received and filed;63 but surplus matter returned with the verdict need not be recorded;64 and if such matter is placed on the record by the clerk, it should be erased.65 It has been held that a verdict indorsed on the back of the indictment by the jury is a sufficient record to allow them to be discharged. Where the jury on discovering a mistake in the verdict are allowed to retire again the recordation of the verdict in regard to which the mistake occurred is not conclusive. 67 Where an insufficient verdict is legally declared and entered, it is binding on the court.68 Amendment or correction of record. The miscopying of the verdict is a clerical error which may be corrected nunc pro tunc by an entry properly reciting the facts as shown by the verdict."9 [ 2613] 6. Objections and Exceptions. De 58. In re Lewis, 51 Mont. 539, 154 P 713. 59. State v. Steptoe, 1 Mo. A. 19 [aff 65 Mo. 640]; Com. v. Dudley, 46 Pa. Super. 337; Com. v. Flaherty, 29 Pa. Co. 236. 60. State v. Murray, 139 La. 280, 71 S 510; State v. Reonnals, 14 La. Ann. 278. 61. O'Connor v. State, 9 Fla. 215; State v. Walters, 15 La. Ann. 648; State v. Arrington, 7 N. C. 571. 62. Terr. v. Harper, 1 Ariz. 399, 25 P 528; Peo. v. Smalling, 94 Cal. 112, 29 P 421; Peo. v. Smith, 59 Cal. 601; Peo. v. Gilbert, 57 Cal. 96; State v. Levy, 24 Minn. 362; State v. Depoister, 21 Nev. 107, 25 P 1000. 63. Lewis v. State, 10 Ala. A. 31, 64 S 537; State v. Roberts, 95 Kan. 280, 147 P 828; Johnson v. Com., 80 Ky, 377; Smith v. State, 51 Wis. 615, 8 NW 410, 37 AmR 845. [a] Signature by judge to record. -Under a mandatory statute requiring the records of each day's proceedings to be signed by the presiding judge, a verdict, although recorded, has been held invalid where the record was not signed. Johnson v. Com., 80 Ky. 377. [b] Where defendant dies after verdict but before it is presented in court, the verdict should be filed and the court's journal should record the cessation of the trial and the reason therefor. State v. Roberts, 95 Kan. 280, 147 P 828. 64. Roby V. State. 61 Ga. 45 (written recommendation to mercy signed by some of the jurors as individuals); Com. V. Dowling, 114 Mass. 259. Surplusage generally see supra § 2584. 65. Com. v. Quann, 2 Va. Cas. (4 Va.) 89. 66. O'Connor v. State, 9 Fla. 215. 67. Gordon V. State, 158 Wis. 32, 147 NW 998. | fendant has the right to object to an insufficient verdict and to insist that the defects or omissions therein be corrected.70 But if accused allows the discharge of the jury without raising his objection,"1 and without moving for a correction of the verdict," he thereby waives formal defects in the verdict; but he does not waive his right to object on the ground that the verdict does not respond to his special plea.73 A failure to object to a defective verdict when it is rendered waives the right to move for a venire de novo.74 An exception to a verdict that it is contrary to the law and the evidence is not sufficiently specific.75 An objection that the sentence is not supported by the verdict, when properly construed, is not waived by a failure to object to the form of the verdict, or to its reception by the court.76 [§ 2614] M. Waiver and Correction of Irregularities and Errors.77 As a general rule a person on trial for a crime cannot waive any of his constitutional rights,78 and it has been held that on a trial involving deprivation of life or liberty defendant cannot waive any essential matter, but must be considered as standing on all his legal rights, and waiving nothing.so It has been held, however, that defendant may waive any constitutional or statutory right which is in the nature of a personal privilege,81 and which he can waive without affecting the rights of others or the jurisdiction of the court as to the subject matter and without detriment to the public;82 and it has been said that defendant may waive irregularities and rights, whether constitu of the signed verdict of not guilty is not conclusive of acquittal. Gordon v. State, 158 Wis. 32, 147 NW 998. mistakenly tence generally see infra §§ 3071-3095. 77. Waiver of: Arraignment see supra § 720. Counsel for defendant see supra § 2077. 68. Peo. v. Bowman, 24 Cal. A. 781, 142 P 495. 69. Lewis v. State, 10 Ala. A. 31, 64 S 537, 538. 70. Williams V. Com., 140 Ky. 34, 130 SW 807; In re Gomez, 52 Mont. 189, 156 P 1078; Peo. v. Koerner, 117 App. Div. 40, 102 NYS 93 [aff 191 N. Y. 528 mem, 84 NE 1117 mem]. [a] Right of counsel.-The court, on the jury returning a verdict, may properly refuse to hear the counsel for accused before the verdict has been received; for, if counsel has any complaint that the verdict when rendered is improper he has, under a statute relating to new trials, ample remedy to protect the rights of accused. Peo. v. Koerner, 117 App. Div. 40, 102 NYS 93 [aff 191 N. Y. 528 mem, 84 NE 1117 mem]. 71. Ark.-Cargill v. State, 76 Ark. 550, 90 SW 618. Ky-Williams v. Com., 140 Ky. 34. 130 SW 807; Gillum v. Com., 121 SW 445. Mass. -Com. v. Carr, 143 Mass. 84, 9 NE 28. N. C.-State v. Lucas, 124 N. C. 825, 32 SE 962. Okl-Tittle v. State, 7 Okl. Cr. 421, 123 P 1036. 72. Williams v. Com., 140 Ky. 34, 130 SW 807. 73. State v. Friedley, 73 W. Va. 684, 80 SE 1112. Necessity of verdict responding to special pleas see supra § 2598. 74. May v. State, 140 Ind. 88, 39 NE 701; State v. Blue, 134 La. 561, 567, 64 S 411 [quot Cyc]; State v. Jeanisse, 125 La. 360, 363, 51 S 290 [quot Cyc]; Com. v. Price, 10 Kulp (Pa.) 41. 75. State v. Cokley, 83 S. C. 197, [a] Thus, where the jury return 65 SE 174; State v. Branham, 13 S. a verdict of guilty, but, on discover- C. 389. ing that they have, by mistake, 76. State v. Snider, 32 Wash. 299, signed the blank verdict of not 73 P 355. guilty, are allowed again to retire, Requisites and sufficiency of sen Motion for directed verdict see supra § 2305. Objections and exceptions to: Argument and conduct of counsel see supra §§ 2266-2269. Conduct of trial in general see supra § 2111. Custody and conduct of jury see supra § 2570. Evidence see supra §§ 2205, 22172220. Instructions and refusal to instruct see supra § 2513. Separation of jury see supra § 2528. Service of copy of indictment or information see supra § 2025. Service of list of jurors see supra § 2047. Verdict see supra § 2613. Presence of: Defendant see supra §§ 2071, 2073. Judge see supra § 2061. Requirement that officer in charge of jury be sworn see supra § 2523. Right to: Confront witnesses see supra § 2122. List of witnesses see supra § 2030. Publicity of proceedings see supra § 2052. Separate trial see supra § 2014. 78. Ex p. Glen, 111 Fed. 257 [rev 189 U. S. 506 mem, 23 SCt 851 mem, 47 L. ed. 921 mem]; Strassell v. Com., 4 KyL 618, 11 Ky. Op. 886; Cancemi v. Peo., 18 N. Y. 128, 7 AbbPr 271. 79. Spurgeon v. Com., 86 Va. 652, 10 SE 979. 80. State v. Oakes, 95 Me. 369, 50 A 28. 81. Walker v. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 533, 139 P 711; State v. Frisbee, 8 Okl. Cr. 406, 127 P 1091; Stouse v. State, 6 Okl. Cr. 415, 119 P 271; Starr v. State, 5 Okl. Cr. 440, 115 P 356; Blair v. State, 4 Okl. Cr. 359. 111 P 1003; State v. Vaughn, 95 S. C. 455. 79 SE 312. 82. Haygood v. State, 10 Ga. A. tional or statutory, much the same as in civil cases.83 arise from his neglect in proper time to insist on his Subject to these rules defendant may, either ex- rights;85 as where, having knowledge of an irregupressly or impliedly, waive his right to object to larity or error, he fails to make proper objection.86 irregularities or errors which occur during the trial,s Cured by verdict. Mere irregularities in the trial and if he is represented by counsel such waiver may are cured by the verdict.87 XVI. NEW TRIAL AND ARREST OF JUDGMENT [BY HERBERT B. HAWES] 91 84 94 a statute authorizing a "new trial" does not apply where the original proceedings consist merely of an arraignment and a plea of guilty.99 A motion in arrest of judgment is held, in a number of states, to preclude a subsequent motion for a new trial.2 And a motion in arrest cannot be made to answer the purpose of a motion for a new trial. Conversely, where an application for a new trial is refiled as a motion in arrest of judgment, the new motion will be overruled when it appears that it is based upon facts dehors the record. The fact that defendant has grounds for a motion in arrest of judgment does not preclude him from moving for a new trial.5 [§ 2615] A. New Trial 88-1. Nature and Scope -a. In General. New trials were granted at common law in cases of misdemeanor,s9 but not in prosecutions for felony,90 the practice therein being to grant a stay during which an application might be made for a pardon. And while new trials were granted in criminal proceedings for the enforcement of civil rights,92 the tendency was to refuse them even in such cases.93 At the present time in the United States the occasions and procedure for new trials in criminal proceedings are wholly statutory, from which it follows that one seeking to avail himself of the right must bring himself within the statute.95 Nor will a statute conferring the right to a new trial in general terms be extended by implication so as to make it applicable to criminal cases." A new trial can be granted only after a trial, and hence a motion therefor is properly overruled where there has been no trial.97 In this connection the general definition of "trial" 98 applies, and accordingly 394, 73 SE 423 (waiver of statutory | print 515; Rex v. Bear, 2 Salk. 646, right to be tried at particular time); 91 Reprint 547; Rex V. Smith, 2 Henry v. State, 10 Okl. Cr. 369, 136 Show. 165, 89 Reprint 864; Rex v. P 982, 52 LRANS 113; Hill v. State, Mawbey, 6 T. R. 619, 101 Reprint 9 Okl. Cr. 629, 132 P 950. 736; Rex v. Simmons, 1 Wils. C. P. 329, 95 Reprint 645. 83. Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249, 126 NW 737, 31 LRANS 966; Emery v. State, 101 Wis. 627, 78 NW 145. 84. Ala.-Brand v. State, 13 Ala. A. 390, 69 S 379. Ga.-Howard v. State, 115 Ga. 244, 41 SE 654; Plunkett v. State, 18 Ga. A. 499, 89 SE 589. Ill.-Holland v. Peo., 132 Ill. A. 449. Mo.-State v. Clark, 121 Mo. 500, 26 SW 562. N. C.-State v. Dry, 152 N. C. 813, 67 SE 1000. Okl.-State v. Frisbee, 8 Okl. Cr. 406, 127 P 1091. Tex.-Collins v. State, 77 Tex. Cr. 156, 178 SW 345; Chandler v. State, 60 Tex. Cr. 329, 131 SW 598; Rice v. State, 51 Tex. Cr. 255, 103 SW 1156. [a] Withdrawal of motion.-The overruling of a motion affecting the qualification of one of the counsel for the prosecution affords no ground for complaint, where subsequent to the decision thereon the motion is formally withdrawn. Howard State, 115 Ga. 244, 41 SE 654. V. 85. State v. Major, 132 La. 201, 61 S202; State v. Arbuno, 105 La. 719, 30 S 163. N. H.-State v. Prescott, 7 N. H. 287. N. Y.-Peo, v. Comstock, 8 Wend. 549; Peo. v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. 369. S. C.-State v. Slack, 17 S. C. L. 330. Eng. Reg. y. Whitehouse, Dears. C. C. 1; Rex v. Gough, 2 Dougl. 791, 99 Reprint 503; Rex v. Tremaine, 7 D. & R. 684, 16 ECL 318; Rex v. Curril, Lofft 156. 98 Reprint 585; Rex v. Askew, 3 M. & S. 9, 105 Re 96 Venire de novo distinguished. Independently of statute the proper procedure is to apply for a new trial after a general verdict, and for a venire facias de novo after a special verdict. The material difference between the two methods is that the venire is granted only for errors appearing on the record," 90. Peo. v. Marble, 38 Mich. 309; Peo. v. Seidenshner, 152 NYS 595, 31 N. Y. Cr. 176; Peo. v. Comstock, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 549; Atty.-Gen. v. Bertrand, L. R. 1 P. C. 520; Rex v. Fowler, 4 B. & Ald. 273, 6 ECL 481, 106 Reprint 937; Rex v. Oxford County, 13 East 411, 104 Reprint 429; Rex v. Mawbey, 6 T. R. 619, 101 Reprint 736; 4 Blackstone Comm. pp 354, 355; 1 Chitty Cr. L. p 654. 91. Evers v. State, 87 Nebr. 721, 127 NW 1066; Rex v. Oxford County, 13 East 411, 104 Reprint 429. 92. Atty.-Gen. v. Bertrand, L. R. 1. P. C. 520 [overr Reg. v. Scaife, 17 Q. B. 238, 79 ECL 238, 117 Reprint 1271, 18 Q. B. 773, 83 ECL 773, 118 Reprint 292]; Reg. v. Chorley, 12 Q B. 515, 64 ECL 515, 116 Reprint 960; Rex V. West Riding, 2 East 342, 102 Reprint 399, 12 ERC 655; Reg. v. Russell, 3 E. & B. 942, 77 ECL 942, 118 Reprint 1394; Rex v. Burbon, 5 M. & S. 392, 105 Reprint 1094. 93. Reg. v. Southampton County, 19 Q. B. D. 590; Reg. v. Duncan, 7 Q. B. D. 198. 94. Cal.-Peo. v. Kirby, 15 Cal. A. 264, 114 P 794. of any person found to be insane when tried upon an indictment or information charging crime, and acquitted on that ground, they do not exist." Campbell V. Downer, 94 Kan. 674, 677, 146 P 1039. 95. McCutcheon v. State, 176 Ind. 13, 93 NE 545. 96. 547. Thompson v. Terr., 1 Wash. T. Ledgerwood v. State, 134 Ind. 81, 33 NE 631. 97. 98. See Trial [38 Cyc 1267]. Bearden v. State, 13 Ga. A. 264, 79 SE 79; Trattner v. State, (Ind.) 113 NE 243; Jackson v. State, 161 Ind. 36, 67 NE 690; Sanders v. State, 85 Ind. 318, 44 AmR 29; Com. v. Soderquest, 183 Mass. 199, 66 NE 801. Improvident plea of guilty as ground for new trial see infra § 2624. 1. See infra § 2768 et seq. 2. Yazel v. State, 170 Ind. 535, 84 NE 972; Zellers v. State, 7 Ind. 659; Bepley v. State, 4 Ind. 264, 58 AmD 628; Respublica v. Le Caze, 1 Yeates (Pa.) 55, 2 Dall. 118; Hall v. State, 110 Tenn. 365, 75 SW 716. [a] In Texas, Paschal Dig. art 1471, disallowing a motion for a new trial after a motion in arrest of judgment, was repealed by the code of criminal procedure so far as criminal cases were concerned; so the case of State v. Mann, 13 Tex. 62, ceased to be authority to the effect V. State, 176 that in criminal cases a motion for a new trial cannot be heard after a Matmotion in arrest of judgment. hews v. State, 33 Tex. 102. 3. McClerkin V. State, 20 Fla. 879. 4. Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 76, 9 5. Hollingsworth v. State, 7 Ga. A. 16, 65 SE 1077. Ind. McCutcheon N. Y.-Peo. v. Schmidt, 216 N. Y. tion was involved in the app den 216 N. Y. 762 mem, 111 NE 1095 mem]; Peo. v. Fisher, 97 Misc. 510, 163 NYS 161; Peo. v. Sparrow, 93 Misc. 468, 157 NYS 265; Peo. v. Dalton, 15 Wend. 581. R. I.-State v. Papa, 32 R. I. 453, 80 A 12; State v. Lynch, 28 R. I. 463, 68 A 315. Tenn.-Temple v. State, 127 Tenn. 429, 155 SW 388. [a] After acquittal on ground of insanity.-"New trial and appeal are matters of legislative discretion and favor. They may be granted or withheld, as the legislature sees fit. Having been withheld in the case S 87. [a] Illustration.-Defendant may move for a new trial on the ground that his conviction resulted from evidence illegally admitted, although he might also move in arrest of judgment on conviction, where it appears from the indictment that the alleged offense is barred by limitations, and no exception to remove the bar is stated in the indictment. Hollingsworth v. State, 7 Ga. A. 16, 65 SE 1077. 6. Ind.-Dolan v. State, 122 Ind. 141. 23 NE 761. N. Y.-Shepherd v. Peo., 25 N. Y. while a new trial may be had for other causes as well.' 11 [§ 2616] b. Right of Prosecution. According to the weight of authority a new trial cannot be granted on the application of the prosecution after jeopardy has attached and after defendant has been tried and acquitted, this rule being analogous to, and controlled by, the general principles applicable to appeals by the prosecution.9 Statutes which authorize new trials under such circumstances on the application of the state usually are held to be in violation of the constitutional prohibition against a second jeopardy.10 But the contrary has been held; and under some statutes the court may set aside a verdict of acquittal and grant a new trial in case of an offense punishable by fine only,12 although not where it is punishable by imprisonment.13 At common law it seems to have been the rule that where a verdict of acquittal was obtained by the fraud of the prisoner, as by keeping the prosecuting witness away or neglecting to give the prosecution notice of trial, a new trial could be granted;11 and in England it has been held that where the prosecution, although criminal in its form and substance, involves merely the determination of a civil right, a new trial may be granted on the application of the crown for a misdirection or a verdict contrary to the evidence.15 406; Peo. v. McKay, 18 Johns. 212. N. C.-State v. Hardie, 7 N. C. 232. Va.-Com. v. Gibson, 2 Va. Cas. (4 Va.) 70. Ald. Eng.-Rex v. Fowler, 4 B. & 273, 6 ECL 481, 106 Reprint 937. 7. Walsh v. Peo., 88 N. Y. 458 [aff 13 NYWkly Dig 570]; 1 Chitty Cr. L. p 655. Grounds for new trial see infra §§ 2622-2730. 8. U. S.-Cummins v. U. S., 232 Fed. 844, 147 CCA 38; Fries' Case, 9 F. Cas. No. 5,126, 3 Dall, 515. Cal.-Peo. v. Horn, 70 Cal. 17, 11 P 470; Peo. v. Bangeneaur, 40 Cal. 613; Peo. v. Webb., 38 Cal. 467. 54. Conn.-State v. Brown, 16 Conn. Ga.-Black v. State, 36 Ga. 447, 91 AmD 772. Ind.-State v. Newkirk, 80 Ind. 131; Danenhoffer v. State, 79 Ind. 75; State v. Davis, 4 Blackf. 345. Me.-Stevens v. Fassett, 27 Me. 266. Mich.-Peo. v. Cook, 10 Mich. 164. Mont.-State v. Silver Bow County Dist. Ct., 44 Mont. 318, 119 P 1103, AnnCas1913B 396. Nev.-State v. Herrick, 3 Nev. 259; State v. Hall, 3 Nev. 172. N. J.-State v. Kanouse, 20 N. J. L. 115; State v. De Hart, 7 N. J. L. 172. N. C-State v. Freeman, 66 N. C. 647; State v. Martin, 10 N. C. 381; State v. Taylor, 8 N. C. 462. Or.--State v. Reed, 52 Or. 377, 97 P 627; Portland v. Erickson, 39 Or. 1, 62 P 753. Pa.-Com. v. Wallace, 7 Pa. Super. 405; Com. v. Martin, 12 Pa. Dist. 644; Com, v. Pflueger, 10 Pa. Dist. 717. R. I.-State v. Lee, 10 R. I. 494. Tex.-State v. Burris, 3 Tex. 118. [§ 2617] c. Right of Defendant (1) In General. Under the various statutes new trials may be granted to defendants in trials either for felony 16 or for misdemeanor.17 The doctrine of the common law that one convicted of felony had no right to a new trial,18 is now universally rejected in state and federal courts, 19 and no distinction is made between felonies and misdemeanors except that a new trial is granted more readily to one convicted of felony, as the consequences of refusal are greater.20 The right accorded to parties convicted of crime to apply for new trials, and the power and authority conferred upon the courts to grant them, constitute one of the most important remedies afforded by the lawmaker for the ascertainment of errors and resulting injury which may have taken place in the proceedings.21 Where two or [§ 2618] (2) Codefendants. more persons are jointly indicted and jointly or separately tried for the same offense, and one or more are acquitted and the others convicted, a new trial may be granted as to those convicted without disturbing the verdict of acquittal.22 Conversely, where several are convicted of the same crime, a new trial may be granted to one or more and judgment entered against the others, where the motion is granted for errors which were not prejudicial to the others.23 Similarly the conviction and confes 11. State v. Lee, 65 Conn. 265, 30 A 1110, 48 AmSR 202, 27 LRA 498. 12. Fenix v. State, 90 Ark. 589, 120 SW 388; Taylor v. State, 36 Ark. 84; State v. Czarnikow, 20 Ark. 160; Jones v. State, 15 Ark. 261. 13. State v. Hand, 6 Ark. 169, 42 AmD 689. 14. 1 Chitty Cr. L. p 657; kins P. C. c 47 § 12. Haw- 61. 15. Reg. v. Seale, 5 E. & B. 1, 85 ECL 1, 119 Reprint 382. [a] Limitation of rule. It has been intimated that if in such a case a new trial is granted after acquittal it will be only where there has been a very clear miscarriage of justice. Reg. v. Russell, 3 E. & B. 942, 77 ECL 942, 118 Reprint 1394. [b] Application of rule denied. (1) This rule has been denied application to an indictment for nonrepair of a highway. Reg. v. Challicombe, 6 Jur. 481; Rex v. Burbon, 5 M. & S. 392, 105 Reprint 1094. (2) On an indictment for obstructing a highway the court said that where defendant had been acquitted and had been in peril of imprisonment, it had no jurisdiction to grant a new trial. Reg. v. Duncan, 7 Q. B. D. 198. 16. U. S.-U. S. v. Fries, 9 F. Cas. No. 5,126, 3 Dall. 515; U. S. v. Conner, 25 F. Cas. No. 14,847, 3 McLean 573; U. S. v. Gilbert, 25 F. Cas. No. 15,204, 2 Sumn. 19. Ida.-State v. Cotterel, 12 Ida. 572, 86 P 527. Ind.-Weinzorpflin Black f. 186. V. State, 7 La.-State v. Hornsby, 8 Rob. 583, 41 AmD 314; State v. George, 8 Rob. 535; State v. Charlot, 8 Rob. 529. Mass.-Com. v. Green, 17 Mass. 515. N. H.-State v. Prescott, 7 N. H. 287. Tex.-Perez v. State, 48 Tex. Cr. 225, 87 SW 350. Va.-Grayson (47 Va.) 712. V. Com., 6 Gratt. 17. State v. Miller, 10 Minn. 313. 18. See supra § 2615. 19. U. S.-U. S. v. Halberstadt, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,276, Gilp. 262; U. S. v. Harding, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,301, 1 Wall. Jr. 127; U. S. v. Keen, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,510, 1 McLean 429; U. S. v. Macomb, 26 F. Cas. No. 15,702, 5 McLean 286. Ala. State v. Slack, 6 Ala. 676. N. Y.-Peo. v. McMahon, 2 Park, Cr. 663 (rev on other grounds 15 N. Y. 384]; Peo. v. Morrison, 1 Park. Cr. 625. N. C.-State v. Merrill, 13 N. C. 269. S. C.-State v. Larumbo, 16 S. C. L. 183; State v. Wood, 8 S. C. L. 29. Va.-Ball v. Com., 8 Leigh (35 Va.) 726; Allen v. Com., 2 Leigh (29 Va.) 727. 20. State v. Tomlinson, 11 Iowa 401; State v. Jones, 12 Mo. A. 93 [aff 79 Mo. 441]. 21. State v. Maloney, 115 La. 498, 39 S 539; Peo. v. Cignarale, 110 N. Y. 23, 17 NE 135, 6 N. Y. Cr. 82. 22. U. S. v. Campbell, 25 F. Cas. No. 14,714, 4 Cranch C. C. 658; Sims v. State, 87 Ga. 569, 13 SE 551; Seborn V. State, 51 Ga. 164. Holcomb v. State, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 417; Rex v. Mawbey, 6 T. R. 619, 101 Reprint 736. [a] Principals in the first and second degree.-Where, on a trial of one defendant as principal in the second degree, the record of the conviction of the other as principal in the first degree is introduced in evidence, and subsequently the principal in the first degree is granted a new trial and acquitted, the principal in the second degree is entitled to a new trial. Jackson v. State, 54 Ga. 439. Testimony of acquitted co-defendant as ground for new trial see infra 2717. 23. U. S.-Browne v. U. S., 145 Fed. 1, 76 CCA 31 [aff 128 Fed. 615, 126 Fed. 766, and certiorari den 200 U. S. 618, 26 SCt 755, 50 L. ed. 623]. D. C.-Dufour v. U. S., 37 App. 497. Fla. -Bacon v. State, 22 Fla, 51. Ga.-Burgess v. State, 93 Ga. 304, 20 SE 331; Walker v. State, 17 Ga. A. 321, 86 SE 735; Maughon v. State, 9 Ga. A. 559, 71 SE 922. La. State v. Ryan, 122 La. 1095, 48 S 537. Minn. State v. Christianson, 131 sion of a codefendant exonerating defendant does not necessarily require a new trial.24 A fortiori the mere indictment of another person for the same crime subsequently to defendant's conviction is not ground for a new trial to defendant.25 Where codefendants are tried separately, the imposition of a lighter sentence on some than on the others does not entitle the others to a new trial.26 Nor will one of the defendants be entitled to a new trial because the state pursues a different line of prosecution against the others, with the result that they receive a milder punishment under the verdict of the jury.27 [§ 2619] d. Power of Court. It has been held that the trial court has inherent power to grant a new trial if defendant has been deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial.28 Generally, Minn, 276, 154 NW 1095. Pa.-Com. v. Jung Jow, 219 Pa. (59 Ont.-Rex v. Murray, 27 Ont. L. 382, 4 OntWN 368, 23 ÖntWR 492. [a] Where evidence is different.(1) Where the proof connecting accused and his codefendant with the crime differed, accused is not necessarily entitled to a new trial because his codefendant was granted a new trial. State V. Christianson, 131 Minn. 276, 154 NW 1095. (2) Where two persons are jointly tried and convicted, and there is no evidence to show that one of them is guilty, it is error to refuse a new trial as to that one. State v. Clardy, 73 S. C. 340, 53 SE 493. however, it is held that authority to grant new trials in criminal cases rests entirely on statute,29 and under some constitutions and statutes the power is confined to particular courts.30 Except in so far as given by such provisions, inferior courts have no power to grant new trials.31 But a court having the power is not deprived thereof by the fact that an appellate court may review errors in the lower court without a motion for a new trial as a condition to review.32 [2620] e. Discretion of Court. In criminal, as in civil,33 cases, the grant or refusal of a new trial is generally said to rest in the sound discretion of the trial court,34 and the appellate court has no right to review the exercise of such discretion unless it appears that it has been abused to the prejudice tion in a misdemeanor case and grant a new trial at the instance of defendant). 31. Daniel v. State, 55 Ga. 222; Tate v. State, 48 Ga. 37; Peo. V. New York County Ct. of Gen. Sess., 185 N. Y. 504, 78 NE 149 [aff 112 App. Div. 424, 98 NYS 557] (court of general sessions). And see New Trial [29 Cyc 722]. 32. Gardner v. State, 96 Ark. 145, 131 SW 338. 33. See New Trial [29 Cyc 1008, 1009]. 34. U. S.-Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140, 13 SCt 50, 36 L. ed. 917; Shepard v. U. S., 236 Fed. 73, 149 CCA 283; Pettine V. New Mexico, 201 Fed. 489, 119 CCA 581; Daniels v. U S., 196 Fed. 459, 116 CCA 233; Hedderly v. U. S., 193 Fed. 561, 114 CCA 227; Frank v. U. S., 192 Fed. 864, 113 CCA 188; U. S. v. Gibson, 188 Fed. 396; Higgins v. U. S., 185 [b] Acquittal of actual perpetra-Fed. 710, 108 CCA 48; McDonnell v. tor-Where two are jointly indicted U. S., 133 Fed. 293, 66 CCA 671; for murder as principals in the first U. S. v. Radford, 131 Fed. 378. degree, and one is convicted of voluntary manslaughter, the fact that the other is acquitted does not entitle the former to a new trial, where the evidence authorized a finding that the killing, although perpetrated by the one acquitted was under legal principles chargeable to the one convicted. Maughon v. State, 9 Ga. A. 559, 71 SE 922. • [c] Acquittal on related charge.A motion for new trial by a person convicted of receiving stolen money is not sustainable on the ground that the person from whom the money was received had been acquitted of the theft. State v. Ryan, 122 La. 1095, 48 S 537. 24. See infra § 2710. 25. Nero v. State, 126 Ga. 554, 55 SE 404. 26. Seats v. State, 122 Ga. 173, 50 SE 65. 27. Allen v. Com., 114 Va. 826, 77 SE 66. [a] Illustration.-Where the applicants for a new trial were convicted of murder in the first degree on an indictment charging conspiracy, and the other defendants were found guilty of murder in the second degree, the charge of conspiracy having been dropped as to them, the difference between the verdicts did not entitle applicants to a new trial. Allen v. Com., 114 Va. 826, 77 SE 66. 28. Peo. v. Mullen, 49 Misc. 289, 99 NYS 227. Jurisdiction of application see infra 2731. Power to act of own motion see infra § 2731. Ala.-Smith v. State, 165 Ala. 50, 51 S 610; Dawson v. State, 41 S 803; Jones v. State, 104 Ala. 30, 16 S 135; Knight v. State, 103 Ala. 48, 16 S 7; Franklin v. State, 29 Ala. 14; Dempsey v. State, (A.) 72 S 773; Arden v. State, 6 Ala. A. 64, 60 S 538; Bell v. State, 2 Ala. A. 150, 56 S 842. Ariz-Talley v. State, 18 Ariz. 309, 159 P 59. Ark.-Avant v. State, 173 SW 405; Little v. State, 165 SW 256; Adams v. State, 100 Ark. 203, 139 SW 1116; Rynes v. State, 99 Ark. 121, 137 SW 800; Cravens v. State, 95 Ark. 321, 128 SW 1037; Ward v. State, 85 Ark. 179, 107 SW 677; Oliver v. State, 34 Ark. 632. Cal.-Peo. v. Byrne, 160 Cal. 217, 116 P 521; Peo. v. Feld, 149 Cal. 464, 86 P 1100; Peo. v. Sing Yow, 145 Cal. 1, 78 P 235; Peo. v. Lim Foon, 29 Cal. A. 270, 155 P 477; Peo. v. Kilfoil, 27 Cal. A. 29, 148 P 812; Peo. v. Brewer, 19 Cal. A. 742, 127 P 808; Peo. v. Saunders, 13 Cal. A. 743, 110 P 825; Peo. v. Carantan, 11 Cal. A. 561, 105 P 768; Peo. v. Kwpr Singh, 11 Cal. A. 427, 105 P 423. Conn.-Burns V. State, 84 Conn. 518, 80 A 712; State v. Brockhaus, 72 Conn. 109, 43 A 850. Ga.-Hicks v. State, 146 Ga. 221, 91 SE 57; Hall v. State, 141 Ga. 7, 80 SE 307; Rogers v. State, 129 Ga. 589, 59 SE 288; Phillips v. State, 121 Ga. 358, 49 SE 290; Miller v. State, 119 Ga. 561, 46 SE 838; Harmon v. State, 111 Ga. 829, 35 SE 654; Smith v. State, 91 Ga. 188, 17 SE 68; Vann v. State, 83 Ga. 44, 9 SE 945; Zoucks v. State, 19 Ga. A. 744, 92 SE 228: Jenkins v. State, 19 Ga. A. 626, 91 SE 944; Jackson v. State, 19 Ga. A. 30. Crosson v. State, 124 Ga. 651, 621, 91 SE 923; Hall v. State, 19 Ga. 52 SE 880 (under the constitution A. 605, 91 SE 908: Cox v. State, 19 confined to the superior courts and Ga. A. 283, 91 SE 422; Rogers v. 18 Ga. A. city courts therein specified); Gil- State, 702, 90 SE 356: bert v. Johnson, (W. Va.) 90 SE 111 Griffin v. Brand, 18 Ga. A. 641, 90 (holding that, under Code [1913] c SE 90; Blount v. State, 18 Ga. A. 50 §§ 219-230 [§§ 2773-2785], a jus- 204, 89 SE 78; Head v. State, 17 Ga. tice of the peace has no jurisdiction A. 479, 87 SE 689; Angry v. State, to set aside a judgment of convic- 17 Ga. A. 161, 86 SE 403; Wilson v. 29. See supra § 2615. State, 15 Ga. A. 632, 84 SE 81; Roberson v. State, 15 Ga. A. 545, 83 SE 877; Humphries v. State, 15 Ga, A. 349, 83 SE 153; Shropshire v. State, 15 Ga. A. 345, 83 SE 152; Brown v. State, 15 Ga. A. 115, 82 SE 634; Cannington v. State, 14 Ga. A. 814, 82 SE 356; Bell v. State, 14 Ga. A. 425, 81 SE 253; Waters v. State, 14 Ga. A. 276, 80 SE 703; Easterling v. State, 12 Ga. A. 690, 78 SE 140; Jones v. State, 12 Ga. A. 564, 77 SE 892; Johnson v. State, 7 Ga. A. 48, 66 SE 148. V. Fleming, 17 Ida. 471, 106 P 305; State v. Cook, 13 Ida. 45, 88 P 240. Ill.-Martin v. Peo., 13 Ill. 341; Pate v. Peo., 8 Ill. 644. Ind.-Weinzorpflin V. State, 1 Blackf. 186. Ida.-State Iowa.-State v. Lowell, 123 Iowa 427, 99 NW 125 State v. Hogan, 115 Iowa 455, 88 NW 1074; State V. Hutchinson, 95 Iowa 566, 64 NW 610; State v. Black, 59 Iowa 390, 13 NW 345. Kan.-State v. Durein, 70 Kan. 1, 13, 78 P 152, 80 P 987, 15 LRANS 908 [aff 208 U. S. 613 mem, 28 SCt 567 mem, 52 L. ed. 645 mem]. Ky.-Allen v. Com., 175 Ky. 46, 193 SW 650; Jenkins v. Com., 113 SW 846; Hughes v. Com., 14 SW 682, 12 KyL 580; Brooks v. Com., 14 SW 416, 12 KyL 403; Hunt v. Com., 12 SW 127, 11 KyL 353; Edrington v. Com., 7 KyL 377. La.-State v. Zagone, 135 La. 550, 65 S 737; State v. Brannon, 133 La. 1027, 63 S 507; State v. Charles, 130 La. 683, 58 S 509; State v. Latham, 125 La. 963, 52 S 113; State v. Jones, 112 La. 980, 36 S 825; State v. Davis, 48 La. Ann. 727, 19 S 670; State v. Hagan, 45 La. Ann. 839, 12 S 929; State v. Ware, 43 La. Ann. 400, 8 S 878; State v. Beck, 41 La. Ann. 584, 6 S 431; State v. McCrea, 40 La. Ann. 20, 3 S 380; State v. Walker, 39 La. Ann. 19, 1 S 269; State v. Bird, 38 La. Ann. 497; State v. Washington, 36 La. Ann. 341; State v. White, 35 La. Ann. 96; State v. Fulford, 33 La. Ann. 679; State v. Breckenridge, 33 La. Ann. 310; State v. McCort, 23 La. Ann. 326. Mass. -Com. v. Borasky, 214 Mass. 313, 101 NE 377; Com. v. White, 147 Mass. 76, 16 NE 707; Com. v. Green, 17 Mass. 515. Mich.-Peo. v. Francis, 52 Mich. 575, 18 NW 364. Minn.-State v. Newell, 134 Minn. 384, 159 NW 829; State v. Lucken, 129 NW Minn. 402, 152 769; State v. Schreiber, 111 Minn. 138, 126 NW 536; State v. Nelson, 91 Minn. 143, 97 NW 652; State v. Madigan, 66 Minn. 10, 68 NW 179; State v. Floyd, 61 Minn. 467, 63 NW 1096. Mo.-State v. Jeffries, 117 Mo. A. 569, 92 SW 501; State v. Pollard, 14 Mo. A. 583 mem; State v. Morgan, 1 Mo. A. 22. Mont.-State v. Jones, 32 Mont. 442. 80 P 1095. Nebr.-Liniger v. State, 85 Nebr. 98, 122 NW 705; Maynard v. State, 81 Nebr. 301, 116 NW 53; Lindsay v. |