Case Name: State v. Antonio
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1825-12
Citations: 4 Hawks 200
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. Antonio.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 200–215

Head Matter:
State v. Antonio.
From Craven.
An alien is not entitled to a jury de medietate lingua, in North-Carolin*.
This vras an indictment for murder, tried below before Norwood, Judge. The prisoner, upon his arraignment, pleaded not guilty, and suggested to the Court that he was an alien, and prayed that he might have a jury de medietate linguse; it was admitted on the part of the state that the prisoner was an alien. The Court overruled the motion for a jury de medietate, and the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced to death.
Tiie prisoner moyed, before judgment, to set aside the verdict, and have a new venire because of the denial of his prayer for a jury de medietate, which' being refused, and judgment pronounced, the prisoner appealed.
Gaston, for the prisoner,
contended, that the stat. 28 Ed. S. ch. IS. giving a jury de medietate in England, and yet in force there, was unquestionably the law which our ancestors brought with them. That it was, before the revolution, the law of North-Carolina; for it was not “ incompatible with our way of living and trade.” Act of 1715, ch. 5. See also the act of 1746, ch. 2. § 23. § 10.
It has been allowed also in several of the states; in New-York (2 Johns. Rep. S81.) and in Pennsylvania, (1 Balias 73.) and seems to have been used in the colonies of Maryland, Virginia and South-Carolina. (Mr. Gas-ton here read letters from professional gentlemen of the before named states, on the subject of allowing a jury de medietate in those states.)
The bill of rights of North-Carolina declares, that« no freeman shall be convicted of any crime but by the unani'mous verdict of a jury of good and lawful men in open Court, as heretofore used.” And the act of 1778, ch. 133. JY. Rev. re-enacts “ all such statutes as were heretofore in force and use within this territory,” which are not repugnant to, or inconsistent with, our political institutions and form of government.
The act of 1779, directing the mode of procuring juries in this state, cannot be construed a repeal, for the instructions there given can only be viewed as directory, and are subsidiary to the well known and established principles, and the general statutes in England prescribing the qualification of jurors have not been held to take away, by implication, the right to a jury de medietate. Then why should they here? The general regulations in Pennsylvania, also, are as strong as ours, and yet the right itf there allowed.
In 1793, it was decided at Wilmington (as I have heard,) by the highest judicial authority known to the country at that time, that an alien was entitled to a jury me¿letate.
Henderson. — Judge Williams informed me, that he allowed it at a Court of Oyer and Terminer held at Wilmington many years ago for the trial of some prisoners who were aliens and natives of France.
Gaston. — It seems, then, to have been considered the law; the legislature has not since altered it.
In 1817, the legislature appointed commissioners to enumerate and specify the British statutes in force in North-Carolina, and they have declared this of 28 Ed. 3. to be one. (1 JVkw Rev. 88.) In 1819, the legislature adopted their report, and ordered copies to be delivered to the Courts for their guidance: six years have since elapsed, and the legislature have not Seen fit in any way to alter it.
The Attorney General, for the state.
— Upon an examination of the subject, it will be found to be at least a questionable point whether, even in England, at the prey sent day, a jury de medietate would be allowed. (3 Bl. 361.) But be that as it may, it ought clearly to be shown that such a jury was allowed, or in use here, when our act of 1778 was passed: It should be shown that while we were colonies it was the law and practice of North-Carolina.
The true inquiry here is this, haye our acts regulating juries as to qualification, &c. operated a-repeal of the stat. of Ed. 3. According to the rules laid down for the construction of statutes, (Bac.M. “Statute” G. ll Co. 63.) it would seem to me that the directions given by our law for obtaining juries, and suited to the construction of our Courts, must operate a repeal of all other modes (supposing their previous existence to be undoubted,) which were inconsistent with the constitution of our Courts.
If this be true, it will follow that an alien cannot claim a jury de medietate: for it does not seem to have been in the contemplation of our legislature to permit a Superior Court to issue a venire in any case, or under any circumstances; and the power given the Court to direct the sheriff to summon in certain cases tales de circumslantibus, plainly shows that it has no general power to have a jury summoned. Now, how does the motion for a jury de medietate operate? Hawkins says, as a challenge to the array, and that the Court must issue a new venire for the whole array; but, says our statute, the County Court alone shpll issue a venire, for it alone can determine as to competency in point of freehold.
The sister states haye been resorted to. I can only say, that the practice or statutes of the sister states cannot affect a matter on which (as I contend) we have legislated for ourselves. But it may be remarked, that in Pennsylvania the practice rests entirely on usage, and the Court will not examine the right there because of such usage. In South-Carolina, an act of assembly gives an alien the right: if, ás has been contended for the prisoner, he had it by virtue of the stat. of Ed. why should a law be made to give it again? As to the phrase “ good and lawful men,” in the bill of rights, it does not include aliens; they are not deemed such by the law'.
Of the case at Wilmington I know nothing; but I apprehend it must either have been a conceded point by the prosecutor; or the Court, not having an opportunity of examining the point, felt unwilling to withhold from a prisoner a right which might possibly be his, more especially when the prosecuting officer made no objection. But how'ever this may be, if circuit decisions are available, the point has more than once been ruled on the circuit against the alien’s claim.
As to the report which has been made to the legislature by the commissioners, that the act of Ed. 3. is here in force, it seems to me that it can be viewed as nothing more than the opinions of professional gentlemen on the point- The legislature has done nothing, that I know of, to directly sanction or disapprove of the report. When, jj0wever, it means to give its sanction to such a compilation, it has commonly heretofore said so; its silence, therefore, on this occasion, would load my mind to results different from those of the prisoner’s counsel.
The Court differed in opinion, Haie and Henderson holding that the prisoner was not entitled to a jury de medietaie, and the Chief Justice that he was, and they delivered their respective opinions seriatim, as follows:

Opinion:
Hare, Judge. —
The privilege extending to aliens the right to a jury de medieta'te linguae was granted by stat. 28 Ed. 3. ch. 13. re-enacted by the 8th Hen. 6. ch. 29. It is contended that those statutes are in force in this state, and that that privilege has been improperly withheld from the prisoner in this case. It is said that the act of 1715, New Rev. ch. 5. enforces those statutes. That act declares, that all statute laws of England, providing for the privileges of the people, limitations of actions, preventing vexatious law-suits, immorality and fraud, confirming inheritances and titles to land, shall be in force. It is farther argued, that the act of 177 8, New Rev. ch. 133. embraces them. That act declares, that all such statutes and such parts of the common law as were in force and use as are not destructive of Or repugnant to the freedom and independence of this state, &c. and which have not been provided for, in whole or in part, &c. are declared to be in full force.
If those British statutes were in force before the revolution, I do not think the latter act of assembly excluded them; but I do not think they were in force by the first recited act. That act, so far as relates to this question, enforces such as provided for the privileges of the people; the statutes in question provides for the privilege of aliens. I admit, however, that many statutes of Great Bri» tain had become the Raw of this state before the time of passing that act. When "the state was first settled as a colony of Great Britain, the colonists brought with them, as their birth-right, the laws of the mother country, namely, such parts of the common law, and statutes that were incorporated with it, as were suitable to their situation at the time of their migration; such as the statute 4 Ed. 3. ch. 7. de honis asportatis in vita testatoris, the statute of uses, and the statutes of Elia, against fraudulent conveyances to defraud creditors, &c. And if the statutes we are Sow considering were suitable and proper for the government and well being of the colonists at that time, and were not afterwards repugnant to or inconsistent with the freedom and independence of the state and form of government therein established, I admit tliey are in forcfe at this time. But it seems to me that those statutes were in their nature local; they were founded more in commercial policy than in general principles calculated to answer alone the ends of justice and reach the objects of criminal law. They both speak for themselves. The statute of Hen. 6. premises, that for want of such regulations "many merchant aliens have withdrawn, and daily do withdraw them, and eschew to come and be conversant on this side the sea, and likely it is that, all the said merchant aliens will depart out of the same realm of England if the said last statute be not more fully declared, and the said merchant aliens ruled, governed and demeaned in such inquests according to the first ordinance aforesaid; to the great diminishing of the king's subsidies, and grievous loss and damage of all his said realm of England; and our lord the king, willing therein to provide for the weal and profit of him and all his realm, and to eschew the damages and inconveniences which may easily happen in this behalf; and also to give the said merchant aliens the greatest courage and desire to come with their wares and merchandizes into this realm: by advice of the lords, &c. it is declared, &c." It will be kept in view that this statute was re-enacting the statute of Ed. 3. which first gave the privilege to aliens, which statute it was supposed had been repealed by the statute of Hen. 5. in the precet]jng reign.
In the infancy of the settlement of this country, the habits of the colonists were agricultural; their trade and commerce were altogether in the hands of the mother country; a quite different policy prevailed from that which dictated the statutes oí Ed. S. and lien. 6.; and the question which we have now to decide is, not whether such a law extending the privilege to aliens would be suitable to our present situation, as it seems many of the states have thought it would be, but whether it was suitable to our situation as an infant colony at that time; for if that was not the case, and on that account it was not adopted at that time, it is not the law at this day, for it has never been enforced by any positive law.
I therefore think, as the reasons which induced the parliament in England to enact those statutes, were not good reasons why they should be enforced by the colonists, as not being applicable to their then situation, the Court below gaye a correct judgment in refusing the prisoner the jury he prayed for.