Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957

State v. Dow

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Decided September 25, 1957 · Per Curiam

99 S.E.2d 860; 246 N.C. 644; 1957 N.C. LEXIS 506 (South Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Henderson (N.C. 1970)
Davis v. State (N.C. 1968)
State v. Hagen (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)
State v. Tirado (N.C. 2004)
State v. Tirado (S.C. 2004)
State v. Pockert (Wash. Ct. App. 1987)
State v. Potts (N.C. Ct. App. 1979)
State v. Davis (N.C. Ct. App. 1978)
State v. Harrison (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
State v. Sanders (N.C. 1971)
State v. Ingland (N.C. 1971)
State v. Webb (N.C. 1965)
Armando A. Miranda v. United States (1st Cir. 1958)
Brooks v. Gladden (Or. 1961)
Jaca Hernández v. Delgado (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1961)
Jaca Hernández v. Delgado (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico 1961)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Our Constitution provides: “No person shall be-convicted of any crime but by the unanimous verdict of good and lawful persons in open court.” Art. I, sec. 13.

When requested in apt time, a party is entitled to have the jury polled; that is, an inquiry directed to each juror in order to ascertain his assent to the announced verdict. When so polled and the verdict is challenged, the record must affirmatively establish that each juror assented to the verdict entered. S. v. Cephus, 241 N.C. 562, 86 S.E. 2d 70; S. v. Boger, 202 N.C. 702, 163 S.E. 877; Oil Co. v. Moore, 202 N.C. 708, 163 S.E. 879; Lipscomb v. Cox, 195 N.C. 502, 142 S.E. 779. The verdict now challenged does not, on the record, meet the test.

New trial.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.