NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237 (2026)

Verdict

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 15A CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The verdict must be in writing, signed by the foreman, and made a part of the record of the case.

(b) The verdict must be unanimous, and must be returned by the jury in open court.

(c) If the jurors find the defendant not guilty on the ground that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offense charged, their verdict must so state.

(d) If there are two or more defendants, the jury must return a separate verdict with respect to each defendant. If the jury agrees upon a verdict for one defendant but not another, it must return that verdict upon which it agrees.

(e) If there are two or more offenses for which the jury could return a verdict, it may return a verdict with respect to any offense, including a lesser included offense on which the judge charged, as to which it agrees. (1977, c. 711, s. 1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 78 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Oliver, 470 S.E.2d 16 (N.C. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Oliver, 470 S.E.2d 16 (N.C. 1996). · cites it 18× “2(a) and required the suppression of defendant's breath test result in his criminal prosecution for DWI; and (3) the trial court instructed the jury in such a way as to allow a nonunanimous verdict, which violated the North Carolina Constitution and N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b). For…”

State v. Mays, 582 S.E.2d 360 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 22× “We agree with defendant, based on the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237 (2001) and prior decisions of the North Carolina appellate courts.”

State v. Diaz, 346 S.E.2d 488 (N.C. 1986). · cites it 15× “He argues that the verdict was ambiguous and lacked the unanimity required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237 and article 1, section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.”

State v. Goodman, 257 S.E.2d 569 (N.C. 1979). · cites it 8× “In addition, G.S. 15A-1237 authorizes the use of a written verdict.”

State v. Clark, 377 S.E.2d 54 (N.C. 1989). · cites it 12× “The Official Commentary to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237, which requires that a jury's verdict be in writing, signed by the foreman, and entered in the record of the case, states simply: "It is contemplated that the jury will be given a verdict form setting out the permissible verdicts…”

State v. Flowers, 489 S.E.2d 391 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 6× “The record shows that, as required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b), the courtroom clerk read each of the two verdicts in open court, and the jurors responded collectively to each that their verdict was guilty.”

State v. Lawrence, 612 S.E.2d 678 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “We find defendant's unanimity argument *684 to be dispositive, and therefore do not reach his other assignments of error. [3] Our state Constitution and statutes vest defendants with a right to only be convicted of crimes by a unanimous jury.”

State v. Lyons, 412 S.E.2d 308 (N.C. 1991). · cites it 6× “I, § 24; N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b) (1988). The portion of the indictment pertinent to the instructions reads as follows: The .”

State v. Taylor, 669 S.E.2d 239 (N.C. 2008). · cites it 3× “The trial court’s felony murder instructions were implicitly disjunctive, as they generally referred to the robbery of “a person” without specifically referring to defendant’s robbery of the Facianes or Mrs. Butts. Article.I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution…”

State v. Gray, 491 S.E.2d 538 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 6× “The defendant contends that no valid verdict exists in this case, and no judgment may be imposed.”

State v. Lawrence, 627 S.E.2d 609 (N.C. 2006). · cites it 3× “1, § 24; N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b) (2005). In State v.”

State v. Hartness, 391 S.E.2d 177 (N.C. 1990). · cites it 3× “” See also N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b) (1983). Defendant contends that the trial court’s disjunctive phrasing as to the acts allegedly constituting indecent liberties in this case —defendant’s touching of his stepson or the stepson’s touching of defendant— rendered the verdict…”

Show all 78 citing cases →

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237(a) — 12 cases

State v. Goodman, 257 S.E.2d 569 (N.C. 1979). “In addition, G.S. 15A-1237 authorizes the use of a written verdict.”

State v. Lewis, 616 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).

State v. Gilbert, 535 S.E.2d 94 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).

State v. Collins, 272 S.E.2d 603 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

State v. Herndon, 629 S.E.2d 170 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237(b) — 49 cases

State v. Oliver, 470 S.E.2d 16 (N.C. 1996). “2(a) and required the suppression of defendant's breath test result in his criminal prosecution for DWI; and (3) the trial court instructed the jury in such a way as to allow a nonunanimous verdict, which violated the North Carolina Constitution and N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b). For…”

State v. Diaz, 346 S.E.2d 488 (N.C. 1986). “He argues that the verdict was ambiguous and lacked the unanimity required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237 and article 1, section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.”

State v. Flowers, 489 S.E.2d 391 (N.C. 1997). “The record shows that, as required by N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b), the courtroom clerk read each of the two verdicts in open court, and the jurors responded collectively to each that their verdict was guilty.”

State v. Lawrence, 612 S.E.2d 678 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). “We find defendant's unanimity argument *684 to be dispositive, and therefore do not reach his other assignments of error. [3] Our state Constitution and statutes vest defendants with a right to only be convicted of crimes by a unanimous jury.”

State v. Lyons, 412 S.E.2d 308 (N.C. 1991). “I, § 24; N.C.G.S. § 15A-1237(b) (1988). The portion of the indictment pertinent to the instructions reads as follows: The .”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237(b)(2005) — 1 case

State v. Bates, 634 S.E.2d 919 (N.C. Ct. App. 2006).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237(c) — 1 case

State v. Linville, 265 S.E.2d 150 (N.C. 1980).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237(e) — 2 cases

State v. Mays, 582 S.E.2d 360 (N.C. Ct. App. 2003). “We agree with defendant, based on the plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1237 (2001) and prior decisions of the North Carolina appellate courts.”

State v. McArthur, 662 S.E.2d 579 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.