¶1 The defendant was present in court at the time the jury rendered their verdict. He did not suggest to the court that his counsel was then absent, nor did he ask that he be sent for.
¶2 It was not essential to the validity of the verdict that the jury be polled. It was perfectly competent for the court to receive and enter the verdict in the absence of counsel, the defendant being present. A verdict thus rendered, was neither void nor irregular. It was in all respects regular, and hence, it lay entirely in the discretion of the court to determine whether or not for such cause, it would set the verdict aside and direct a new trial. The presence of counsel is not essential to the validity of proceedings in criminal actions. In some classes of cases the presence of the prisoner is essential. State v. Paylor, 89 N. C., 539.
¶3 Ordinarily the court will see that one charged with a criminal offence is present in court when any material action is taken affecting the party so accused. And when, in a case like this, the counsel should be absent at the time the jury rendered their verdict, and it appeared that the defendant had suffered serious prejudice, the court should in the exercise of a just discretion, set aside the verdict and grant a new trial. But it is discretionary with the court whether it will or not. In this case it does not appear that .the defendant suffered the slightest prejudice, and we are very sure that if the just judge who presided at the trial, had thought he did, he would at once have set the verdict aside.
¶4 There is no error. Let this opinion be certified to the superior court according to law.
¶5 No error. Affirmed.