Gales v. State
Gales v. State
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant has no cause to complain of the action of the court in entering judgment of forfeiture on his bond, or in receiving the verdict of the jury in his absence. In the state of case shown by the record, it was not unlawful or improper for the court to do so. If appellant was thereby injured, it was, as far'as the record shows, his own fault. It was his right, and being on bail, his duty, to be present during the progress of the trial, but if after the trial commenced he voluntarily absented himself, or absconded, he must take the consequences of his bond being declared forfeited, and of the trial being concluded in his absence. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., § 272; Prince v. The State, 36 Miss. 531; Fight v. The State, 7 Ohio 357; The State v. Wamine, 16 Ind. 357.
Irmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Bell Gales v. State
- Cited By
- 7 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- CRIMINAL Law. Sail bond. Judgment on before verdict. Absence of defendant. Gr. was on trial for assault with intent to kill and murder. The jury came into open court and informed the judge that they were unable to agree. The district attorney then asked that G., who was on bond for his appearance and attendance, be called. G. failed to answer, and thereupon a judgment of forfeiture was entered on his bond. The jury then retired and in a few minutes brought in a verdict of guilty. The defendant was called but failed to respond, and the verdict was received in his absence. Held, that it was not error, under the circumstances, ta enter up judgment of forfeiture on the bond before verdict, nor error to receive the verdict in the absence of the defendant.