Carter v. StateCarter v. State
The defendants, Wm. Carter and Major Gibson, were tried and сonvicted for the larceny of a hog. Win. Carter tеstified as a witness in his own behalf, giving evidence tending to exculpate himself. The State introduced a witness whо testified that Carter’s character was bad for truth.' The other defendant was not impeached, but he gаve evidence of his good general charаcter for honesty. The court instructed the jury
The defendants rеquested' in writing the following charges, separately : “Unless each of you is convinced beyond a reаsonable doubt of the guilt of the defendants, from the еvidence in the case, then you should not convict them.” “Before you can convict the defendants you should each be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of their guilt from the evidence and the evidence alone.”
These charges were severally refused, and the defendants excepted to each refusal. That the court erred seems too plain for argument. There is nothing bettеr settled in our jurisprudence than that the concurrence of all the jurors is essential to a verdict in all cases, civil and criminal; as well settled as the оther principle, that the jurors, in a criminal case, must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of thе defendant’s guilt, before there can be a conviction. It is, logically, impossible to apply these principles and hold that a conviction of а criminal charge may be had although one of the jurors may not believe beyond a reasonable doubt that guilt has been established. Each juror must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the acсused is guilty before there can be a conviction.' This right is so securely guarded that when a verdict of conviction is read, the defendant may have the j ury examined by the poll to make sure that it is the verdict of еach juror. For the refusal to give the charges thе judgment is reversed and the cause remanded. Let thе prisoners remain in custody until discharged by due course of law.
Reversed and remanded.