Cross v. North Carolina

Citations

• 132 U.S. 131
• 10 S. Ct. 47
• 33 L. Ed. 287
• 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1850

Syllabus

<p>A State is not deprived of jurisdiction over a person who criminally forges a bill of exchange or promissory note with intent to defraud, in violation of its statutes, or of its power to punish the offender committing such offence, by the fact that he follows this crime up by committing against the United States the further crime of making false entries concerning such bill or note on the books of a national bank, with intent to deceive the agent of the United States designated to examine the affairs of the bank, and in violation of the statute of the United States in that behalf.</p> <p>The false making or forging of a promissory note in a State, purporting to be executed by an individual, and made payable at a national bank, is not a fraud upon the United States, or an offence described in Eev. Stat. § 5418.</p> <p>The same act or series of acts may constitute an offence equally against the United States and against a State, and subject the guilty party to punishment under the laws of each government.</p> <p>If, in a trial in a state court of a person accused of crime, the jury is brought into court; and, on being polled it is disclosed that they were agreed upon á verdict of guilty under two counts m the indictment, but could not agree as to the other counts; and, in the presence of the jury, the prosecuting attorney proposes to enter a nolle prosequi as to those counts; and, the jury having retired, the court permits this to be done; and the jury, being then instructed to pass only upon the remaining counts, return a verdict of guilty as charged in the indictment; all this, however irregular, does not amount to a deprivation of the liberty of the defendant without due process of law.</p>