Case Name: William Sargent v. The State of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1842-12
Citations: 11 Ohio 472
Docket Number: 
Parties: *William Sargent v. The State of Ohio.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cases decided in the supreme court of ohio : upon the circuit at the special sessions in Columbus
Volume: 11
Pages: 402–405

Head Matter:
*William Sargent v. The State of Ohio.
After a jury have returned their verdict, have been discharged, and have separated, they can not be recalled to alter or amend it.
In criminal cases, the verdict should be received in the presence of the prisoner, that he may have the jury polled.
The court may, and, in some cases, ought to keep the jury together until their verdict is rendered, and should require the sheriff to furnish them with proper accommodations, and keep them in close custody.
This is a writ of error to the court of common pleas of San-dusky county.
The plaintiff in error was indicted upon two counts; in the-first, ■for uttering and publishing a counterfeit bank bill; in the second, for an attempt to utter and publish said bill. The record shows that, at the September term, the prisoner was put upon his trial. 'The cause being submitted to the jury, they retired to their room and returned in the evening, after adjournment of court, with a sealed verdict, which was delivered to one of the associate judges, and the jury wore discharged. Upon opening the verdict in court next morning, it appeared to be signed by the jurors^ .and was in these words: “We, the jurors, find the defendant .guilty on the first count.”
The court proceeding to enter the verdict, the prisoner’s counsel ■objected to any entry as to the second count. The court suggested that “ not guilty ” might be entered upon that count. The counsel still objecting, the court directed the jury to be called. Upon their appearing, they were asked if they found the prisoner not guilty on the second count, but guilty only on the first. The jury answered that they considered finding him guilty on the first count was finding him guilty also on the second, and that they intended a general verdict of guilty. The court thereupon ■ordered a general verdict of guilty on the indictment to bo entered.
*A bill of exceptions was thereupon taken. It is assigned on the record for error:
“ 1. That the jury did not render a verdict upon the whole indictment, but only upon one count, and that the court erred in recalling the jury to give a verdict upon the second count after they had been discharged and had dispersed.
“ 2. That the court also erred in receiving a general verdict of guilty after the jury had returned their verdict upon the first count.
“ 3. And in rendering judgment upon a verdict given after the jury had been discharged and were dispersed.”
William Mat, for the plaintiff in error.
S. B. Otis, for the state.

Opinion:
Read, J.
In both civil and criminal cases, the court may, in -their discretion, during the progress of a trial, permit the jury to •disperse for the purpose of obtaining food and rest, and may in either ease direct them to bring in a sealed verdict; but in no case can the jury after they have retired to consider of their verdict, be permitted to separate and disperse until they have agreed. In criminal cases, although the court direct the jury to bring in a. sealed verdict, the whole jury must be present at the time of its delivery, in the presence of the prisoner, that they may be polled, if the prisoner desires it. A single judge may; also, in the presence-of the prisoner, receive the verdict. After the verdict has been received and the jury discharged, whether it may have been received by a single judge or in open court, the control of the jury and of the court over such verdict is at an end. The court cannot alter it, nor can the jury be recalled to alter or amend it. As-well might any other twelve men be called to alter it, as the men who were jurors. The office of a juror is discharged upon the-acceptance of his verdict by the court.
In Oliver's work upon the rights of American citizens, 284, it is said, "after the trial is over and the verdict is once recorded,. 'there seems to be no remedy, even though the jury have made a mistake in their finding, and make an affidavit to that effect. For all mistakes ought to be corrected at the time of trial, and before the verdict is recorded. Courts will not listen to the representations of jurors, contrary to their verdict."
In the case of the United States v. William Keen, 1 McLean, 429, the indictment contained five counts. The jury found the-defendant guilty upon the last four, but did not pass upon the first. The court held that the verdict could not be amended so far as to-enter not guilty upon the first count, nor amended at all. Judgment, however, was rendered against the prisoner upon the counts-on which he was found guilty, the prosecutor being permitted to enter a nolle prosequi upon the first count. The court held that this could be done without subjecting the prisoner to a second trial upon that count, as the conviction upon the other counts could be plead in bar. Although in modern times the ancient strictness-has yielded to & more enlightened reason, yet no rule tending to insure the impartial administration of justice and the purity of jurors has in the slightest degree been abandoned or impaired. In case of persons charged with high misdemeanors, or when excitement prevails, or when there is any just reason to suspect that improper influences may be brought to bear upon the jury, the court are at liberty, and, in the last-named instance, it would be their duty, not to permit the jury to separate at any time during the trial, up to the time of rendering their verdict, but to direct the sheriff to furnish them proper comforts and keep them in close custody. These matters are wholly committed to the sound discretion of the court, but in no case can it be permitted to recall a jury to alter or amend their verdict after it has been received and the jury discharged. This would jeopardize the jealous guards with which the law has surrounded jurors, to insure the pure administration of. justice, and to protect the citizen.
Judgment reversed.