Allen v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1909 |
| Citation | 50 So. 279,162 Ala. 74 |
| Parties | ALLEN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1909.
Appeal from City Court of Talladega; G. K. Miller, Judge.
William H. Allen was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Whitson & Harrison, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., Thomas W. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen Marion H. Sims, and Knox, Acker, Dixon & Blackmon, for the State.
The defendant was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to the penitentiary for three years for the offense of seduction. The defendant, before pleading not guilty, moved the court to quash the indictment upon various grounds contained in his motion. The state filed what is called an answer to this motion, though in fact it is not such; but, if the matter set up therein were availing at all, it would be as a demurrer to motion. The defendant moved to strike the answer, and each ground thereof, and after the motion was overruled demurred thereto, and the demurrer was also overruled. The defendant then introduced one or more of the grand jurors as witnesses, whom the court allowed to testify that other witnesses were examined by the grand jury; but the court declined to allow the defendant to prove by them any facts to which such witnesses before the grand jury had testified. To this the defendant excepted, and proposed to prove by these grand jurors that none of the other witnesses testified to any facts in corroboration of the evidence of the woman upon whom the seduction is charged to have been practiced. The court declined to allow the defendant to attempt to prove such facts. Whether the motion was sufficient, if proven, to require the indictment to be quashed, and whether it was interposed within time, are questions not before us for review. The court seems to have treated it as sufficient, and to have allowed it to be filed but required defendant to announce ready for trial or to plead before passing upon the motion to quash. This was irregular. The court should have first disposed of the motion before requiring the defendant to plead to the merits. Crawford's Case, 112 Ala. 1, 21 So. 214.
The answer of the state to the motion to quash was wholly insufficient, and defendant's demurrer thereto should have been sustained. Treating the motion and the answer as sufficient--as the court evidently did--the defendant should have been allowed to make the proof offered. It tended to prove the averments of the motion and the issues raised thereby. Issue having been joined upon the motion and the answer, either party was entitled to introduce proof in support of or against. No matter if the issues were immaterial, the trial being had thereon, the defendant was entitled to prove or disprove them if he could, and could under this particular statute and the issues in this case, make the proof by the grand jurors, who heard all the evidence. While it would not be proper to prove, or to attempt to prove, by the grand jurors or other witnesses, the weight, extent, or sufficiency of the corroborative evidence, it was certainly competent to prove that there was none, or that there was some. If there was no corroborative evidence the indictment should have been quashed; if there was any, it should not. The court could not and should not have inquired or attempted to inquire into the weight or sufficiency of such evidence. The mere fact that other witnesses than the prosecutrix were examined did not prove that the testimony given by them did or did not corroborate that of the prosecutrix. Their testimony may have contradicted hers, or have been as to entirely different or immaterial matters. It seems to be the practice (or, at least, it was approved and allowed in Hart's Case, 117 Ala. 183, 23 So. 43) to allow the grand jurors to testify as to what the witnesses before them testified touching the matter upon which the indictment was found.
It is evident that the trial court followed the rule and practice announced by this court in Sparrenberger's Case, 53 Ala 481, 25 Am. Rep. 643, as to the extent to which inquiry can be had as to the evidence before the grand jury and upon which they passed or found an indictment. It is there said that when it appears that the witnesses were examined by the grand jury, or the jury had before them legal documentary evidence, no inquiry into the sufficiency of the evidence is indulged. This was said in reference to the common-law rule and the statute (Rev. Code 1867, § 4103, now section 7297, Code 1907). The section of the Code applicable to this case is 7776, which, in addition to what is required by section 7297, requires that "no indictment or conviction shall be had under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman upon whom the seduction is charged." Therefore, in a case of seduction, in order to support an indictment, it must not only appear that "witnesses were before the grand jury," or that the grand jury had before them "legal documentary evidence," but it must also appear (if the issue is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fikes v. State
...add, an indictment is not subject to be quashed because there was illegal evidence also given. This rule is not abridged by Allen v. State, 162 Ala. 74, 50 So. 279. In that case reference was made to section 7776, Code of 1907, section 419, Title 14, Code of 1940, which prohibits an indictm......
-
Mitchell v. State
...followed since its pronouncement. See Munkers v. State, 87 Ala. 94, 6 So. 357; Cooper v. State, 90 Ala. 641, 8 So. 821; Allen v. State, 162 Ala. 74, 50 So. 279; Pannell v. State, 162 Ala. 81, 50 So. 281; Smith v. State, 13 Ala.App. 399, 69 So. 402; Herring v. State, 14 Ala.App. 93, 71 So. 9......
-
Edwardson v. State
...not true, issue should have been joined and evidence adduced to prove the facts. Hart v. State, 117 Ala. 183, 23 So. 43; Allen v. State, 162 Ala. 74, 50 So. 279; Sparronberger v. State, 53 Ala. 481, 25 Am.Rep. 643. The motion to quash was the proper way to raise the question. Franklin v. St......
-
Reeves v. State
...and that it comes too late for him now to complain of the invalidity of the indictment. Authorities supra. Cases such as Allen v. State, 162 Ala. 74, 50 So. 279, cited by appellant, are not in point. In this line of cases the indictment did not meet the requirements of what is now § 419, Ti......