The clerk shall, at the beginning of court, swear all jurors who have not been selected as grand jurors. Each juror shall take (i) the oath required by Section 7 of Article VI of the Constitution of North Carolina, by swearing or affirming to support and maintain the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith and (ii) the oath required under G.S. 11-11, by swearing or affirming to truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in criminal or civil actions that come before the juror and give true verdicts according to the evidence. Nothing herein shall be construed to disallow the usual challenges in law to the whole jury so sworn or to any juror; and if by reason of such challenge any juror is withdrawn from a jury being selected to try a case, his place on that jury shall be taken by another qualified juror. The presiding judge shall decide all questions as to the competency of jurors. (1790, c. 321, P.R.; 1822, c. 1133, s. 1, P.R.; R.C., c. 31, s. 34; Code, s. 405; Rev., s. 1966; C.S., s. 2324; 1967, c. 218, s. 1; 2013-164, s. 1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
37
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1944–2026 · leading case:
State v. Golphin, 533 S.E.2d 168 (N.C. 2000).
State v. Golphin, 533 S.E.2d 168 (N.C. 2000).
· cites it 9× “” N.C.G.S. § 9-14 (1999) (emphasis added). In the context of swearing in prospective jurors, we have previously defined the phrase “at the beginning of court” as “the beginning of the [session] of court.”
State v. Green, 443 S.E.2d 14 (N.C. 1994).
· cites it 3× “2d 1208 (1976); N.C.G.S. § 9-14 (1986). A trial court may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”
State v. Jaynes, 464 S.E.2d 448 (N.C. 1995).
· cites it 3× “The trial court allowed defense counsel to conduct individual voir dire of prospective jurors regarding, their exposure to news media accounts and “word-of-mouth coverage.” Numerous objections were lodged by the prosecution and sustained by the trial court.”
State v. Hyde, 530 S.E.2d 281 (N.C. 2000).
· cites it 3× “The record discloses that the jurors were properly sworn pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 9-14. While defendant concedes that an oath of truthfulness is not statutorily mandated, he nonetheless argues that the trial court’s failure to require the jurors to tell the truth during voir dire…”
State v. Fleming, 512 S.E.2d 720 (N.C. 1999).
· cites it 3× “The jurors were properly sworn pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 9-14 and affirmatively responded when the courtroom clerk administered the following oath: “Do you solemnly swear that you will truthfully, without prejudice or partiality try all issues and criminal actions that come before…”
State v. Allen, 367 S.E.2d 626 (N.C. 1988).
· cites it 3× “2d 1208 (1976); N.C.G.S. § 9-14 (1986). A trial court may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.”
State v. Atkinson, 167 S.E.2d 241 (N.C. 1969).
· cites it 3× “In oral argument in this Court, counsel for the defendant stated frankly that no such objection was then interposed, the exceptions having been entered in preparation of the statement of the case on appeal.”
State v. Noell, 202 S.E.2d 750 (N.C. 1974).
· cites it 3× “Venireman Katherine Alston stated that she knew defendant and his family and considered them good friends. In answer to the solicitor's question, "If the State satisfied you of Tommy Noell's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would it be impossible for you to bring in a verdict of…”
State v. Vinson, 215 S.E.2d 60 (N.C. 1975).
· cites it 3× “" G.S. § 9-14 (1969). His ruling on such questions is not subject to appellate review unless accompanied by some imputed error of law.”
State v. King, 320 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 1984).
· cites it 2× “De *615 fendant then exercised a peremptory challenge and excused Evans.”
Tillman v. Com. Credit Loans, Inc., 655 S.E.2d 362 (N.C. 2008).
“Furthermore, after extensive review of the record, we conclude that the eight findings of fact contested by defendant are supported by competent evidence. We review several of the contested findings here.”
State v. Tatum, 229 S.E.2d 562 (N.C. 1976).
“He further stated that he would require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before returning a verdict of guilty and that his friendship with police officers (not in *85 volved in the investigation of this case) would not prevent him from giving defendant a fair trial.”
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.