Gales v. State

Decided October 15, 1886

Mississippi Supreme Court · decided 1886-10-15

Host. Ralph North, Judge. Bell Gales was indicted in Sharkey County for an assault with, intent to kill and murder. He was arrested and then released on a bond for his appearance at the next term of the circuit court, and from day to day and term to term until discharged by law. He did appear, his trial proceeded, the jury retired to consider their verdict, and after remaining out about four hours they sent word to the judge that they were unable to agree.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“It was his right, and being on bail, his duty, to be present during the progress of the trial, but if after the trial commenced he voluntarily absented himself, or absconded, he must take the consequences of his bond being declared forfeited, and of the trial being concluded in his absence. (citations omitted) (emphasis added)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 631 So. 2d 159 - Sandoval v. State

“Appellant has no cause to complain of the action of the court in entering judgment of forfeiture on his bond, or in receiving the verdict of the jury in his absence. (emphasis added)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 631 So. 2d 159 - Sandoval v. State

Relies on Price v. State · State v. Wamire

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-10-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2016

5 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Aehold, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2Appellant has no cause to complain of the action of the court in entering judgment of forfeiture on his bond, or in receiving the verdict of the jury in his absence. In the state of case shown by the record, it was not unlawful or improper for the court to do so. If appellant was thereby injured, it was, as far'as the record shows, his own fault. It was his right, and being on bail, his duty, to be present during the progress of the trial, but if after the trial commenced he voluntarily absented himself, or absconded, he must take the consequences of his bond being declared forfeited, and of the trial being concluded in his absence. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., § 272; Prince v. The State, 36 Miss. 531; Fight v. The State, 7 Ohio 357; The State v. Wamine, 16 Ind. 357.

¶3Irmed.