History
  • No items yet
midpage
State v. Doolittle
58 N.H. 92
N.H.
1877
Check Treatment

The respondents were not, as matter of right, entitled to separate trials. Am. Cr. Law, ss. 433, 3195; Hawkins v. State, 9 Ala. 137; State v. Soper, 16 Me. 293; 9 Cow. 108, 138, 383; .6 Ham. 86; 2 Ashm. 32; 1 Baldw. 78; 2 Sumn. 20; 4 Johns. 296.

The right to challenge a juror is not a right to elect; it is a right to reject. Where two or more are jointly indicted for a capital offence, each one is entitled to the full number of challenges allowed by law. Am. Cr. Law, s. 3195; U.S. v. Marchant, 12 Wheat. 481; People v. Vermilyea, 7 Cow. 383.

Exceptions overruled.

FOSTER and ALLEN, JJ., did not sit. *Page 93

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Doolittle
Court Name: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Date Published: Mar 5, 1877
Citation: 58 N.H. 92
Court Abbreviation: N.H.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.