Montgomery v. State
| Citation | 164 So.2d 717,42 Ala.App. 345 |
| Decision Date | 12 May 1964 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 167 |
| Parties | James David MONTGOMERY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Horne, Webb & Tucker, Atmore, for appellant.
Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and Paul T. Gish, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was indicted for possessing marijuana in violation of Tit. 22, Sec. 256, Code of Alabama, 1940. The jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty and a sentence of five years in the penitentiary was imposed upon the defendant. The facts of this case as disclosed by the transcript of the record show that the appellant maintained a farm in Escambia County on which he had a field of corn growing. Several State and local officers went to appellant's farm and found marijuana plants growing between the rows of corn in the field near the appellant's house. The defense presented evidence to the effect that the appellant worked in Mobile, Alabama, five days a week and only spent the week ends at his farm and that he had no knowledge of the marijuana plants growing in his corn field.
We feel that a reversal of this case must be had because of the error committed by the trial court after the jury had retired for deliberation. This error is reflected in the 'STIPULATION OF STATE AND DEFENDANT' in the record which is in the following language:
'During the Course of the Jury's deliberations the jury asked the Court for further instructions in this form:
'All of the above took place in the jury room in the Courthouse in the presence of the jury, the Judge, the Solicitors for the State and Attorneys for the Defendant and no others.
'It was agreed at that time between the State and Defendant that the Defendant was to have an exception to the instructions of the Court.'
The continuous presence of the defendant on trial for a felony is essential for the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hilliard
...and the matter remanded for a new trial. EUBANK and HAIRE, JJ., concur. 1 Representative of this view are:ALABAMA Montgomery v. State, 42 Ala.App. 345, 164 So.2d 717 (1964);Graves v. State, 377 So.2d 1129 (Ala.Cr.App.1979), cert. denied, 377 So.2d 1130 (Ala.)INDIANA Danes v. Pearson, 6 Ind.......
-
Donahoo v. State, 7 Div. 578
...was not given, and that the motion was deemed denied 60 days after it was filed. Rule 13(d), Ala.R.Crim.P.Temp. In Montgomery v. State, 42 Ala.App. 345, 164 So.2d 717 (1964), a case directly on point, the court ruled that the trial judge's giving additional instructions to the jury out of t......
-
Henry v. State, 1 Div. 530
...is committed where additional instructions are given to the jury out of the presence and hearing of the defendant. Montgomery v. State, 42 Ala.App. 345, 164 So.2d 717 (1964). " '[T]he continuous presence of the defendant from arraignment to sentence is an essential part of the process provi......
-
Brooks v. State
...to be present at every stage of his trial. Ex parte Bryan, 44 Ala. 402; Neal v. State, 257 Ala. 496, 59 So.2d 797; Montgomery v. State, 42 Ala.App. 345, 164 So.2d 717. However, in this situation, we feel that there are several reasons why the general rule is not applicable: (1) this was mer......