Case Name: Patterson vs. the State
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1846-07
Citations: 7 Ark. 59
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patterson vs. the State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 59–60

Head Matter:
Patterson vs. the State.
In criminal cases in this State, the jury are the judges of the law and evidence, and should be sworn to give their verdict according to both.
The form of oath by analogy to the form used in England is : “You shall well and truly try, and a true deliverance make between the State of Arkansas and the prisoner at the bar, whom you shall have in charge, and a true verdict give according to the law and the evidence : So help you God.”
The defendant was convicted of murder on an issue of not guilty: he brought error, and the judgment was reversed because the record states that the “jury were sworn to say the truth in the premises which form of oath was held wholly insufficient.
Writ of Error to the Circuit Court of Scott county.
Indictment charging Hugh ■ A. and Lucretia Patterson with murdering Joseph Butler, determined in the circuit court of Scott county, at the August term 1843, before the Hon. R. 0. S. Brown, Judge.
The defendants were tried upon a plea of not guilty, Lucretia acquitted, Hugh found guilty of murder in the second degree, qnd sentenced to the penitentiary for five years.
The record, in the entry of the trial and judgment, states that the jury were “selected, chosen and sworn to say the truth in the premises,” and the cause submitted to them, &c.
The defendant Hugh A. Patterspn, moved in arrest pf judgment, jvhich the court overruled, and he brought error.
Blackbui»;, for plaintiff.
Watkins, Attorney General, cpntra.
Oldham, J„ not sitting,

Opinion:
Johns,pN, 0, J,
The plaintiff in error has raised several objections to the decision of the circuit court in overruling his motion in arrest. Upon a earefu} examination of the record, we have found but ,one single point sustained by it. This involves the .question of the sufficiency pf the swearing of the jury who tried the case. They were simply sworn to speak the truth in the premises. The form of the path in England is this: "You shall well and truly try, and a true deliverap.ce make between our ¡Sovereign I*ord the King and the prisoner at the bar, whom yoq shall have ip charge, and q true verdict give according to the ¡evidence: Sp help you God," To the charge in the indictment the plea of the general issue was interposed, and upon which issup was taken. Here there was ah issue regularly formed, which Involved questions pf law as well as fact, and upon which the jury yvere required to pass. In ajl criminal prosecutions under our constitution and lavys, the jury are the judges both of the law and the evidence, and .as a necéss.ary consequence should be sworn, fo decide according. to both. Jt is perfectly manifest that the swearing hi this case Is wholly insufficient, as they are not sworn to web and truly try and a trpe deliverance make between the ¡State pf Arkansas and the prisoner at the bar, nor tp give a trite verdict according tp the law and the evidence. The judgment of the circuit court of Sc.ott county herein rendered piust therefore be reversed .and the prisoner remanded to be further dealt with according tp l.aw,