Case Name: The Commonwealth v. Stephen
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1833-12
Citations: 4 Leigh 679
Docket Number: 
Parties: *The Commonwealth v. Stephen.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 1075–1076

Head Matter:
*The Commonwealth v. Stephen.
December, 1833.
Capital Felony — Record - -Petty Jurors — Freeholders. — In the trial for a capital felony, it is not necessary that it should be expressly stated in the record that the petty jurors were freeholders.
Arrest of Judgment. -Motion in arrest of judgment because several of the petty jury were not freeholders; this being- matter of fact notappearing in the record, is not a good reason for arresting judgment.
Case adjourned from the circuit superiour court of Accomack. Stephen, a free negro, was indicted for murder, in that court, at November term 1833. He pleaded not guilty. “Whereupon,” the record proceeded, “carnea jury, to wit, [here naming them] who being elected, tried and sworn the truth of and upon the premises to speak,” found the prisoner guilty of murder in the first degree. Then, he made a motion in arrest of judgment, 1. because several of the jurors in the panel of the petty jury, which tried him, were not good and lawful freeholders of Accomack or of any other county of the commonw'ealth; and 2. because it was not expressly stated in the record, that any of the petty jury were good and lawful freeholders of that or any other county. And the court, with the consent of the prisoner, adjourned to this court, the question, whether the judgment ought to be arrested for the reasons assigned?
Petty Jurors-Oath — Record.—See. principal case cited in Crump’s Case, 98 Va. 834, 23 S. E. Rep. 760.
See further, monographic note on “Juries” appended to Chahoon v. Com., 20 Gratt. 733.
iArrest of Judgment. — A motion in arrest of judgment lies only to correct an error that is apparent on the face of the record. Gray’s Case. 92 Va. 776, 22 S. E. Rep. 858. citing principal case and Watts v. Com., 4 Leigh 672.
See further, monographic note on “Judgments” appended to Smith v. Charlton, 7 Gratt. 425.
Por the proposition laid down in the headnotes, the principal case was cited in Lawrence v. Com., 30 Gratt. 848.

Opinion:
SMITH, J.
The assignment of error, that several of the jurors were not freeholders, Is matter of fact, not appearing by the record; which, therefore, could not be pleaded in arrest of judgment. As to the other objection, there was no necessity to state in the record, that the jurors were good and lawful men. The record, in this case, is in the usual and correct form. It is, therefore, the unanimous opinion of this court, that the errors assigned are not sufficient to arrest the judgment.