Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 26
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | GARDNER, J. |
| Citation | 85 So. 789,204 Ala. 476 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 26 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1920 |
| Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE. |
85 So. 789
204 Ala. 476
ANDERSON
v.
STATE.
6 Div. 26
Supreme Court of Alabama
June 30, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster, Judge.
Roy Anderson was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.
Sayre and Brown, JJ., dissenting.
J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
GARDNER, J.
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. The appeal is upon the record only, there being no bill of exceptions.
The order for the special venire is similar to that found in Duff Walker v. State, 85 So. 787, present term, which determines this question adversely to appellant. But, in addition to this, there was in the instant case no question raised in the court below as to the venire in any manner, and under the provisions of Acts 1915. p. 708, and Supreme Court rule 27 as amended (198 Ala. xv, 77 South. vii), it was unnecessary that the order appear in the transcript upon this appeal.
No other matter appearing in the transcript calls for comment. Suffice it to say, an examination of the record discloses no reversible error, and the judgment of conviction will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C.J., and McCLELLAN, SOMERVILLE, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
SAYRE and BROWN, JJ., dissent.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
...order and drawing of the special venire was without prejudice to defendant. Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 17......
-
Whittle v. State, 3 Div. 462
...708, 709, amending section 6256 of Code 1907; Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Clayton v. State, 78 So. 462; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387. However, in the order of May 18, 1920, o......
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...Court Rule 27; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; [154 So. 115.] Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Vann State, 207 Ala. 152, 92 So. 182." In view of the change in the statute (Gen. Acts ......
-
Baxley v. State, 4 Div. 701
...to the contrary, it will be presumed that all of the proceedings in this regard were regular. Acts 1915, p. 708; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789. Besides, the judgment entry shows conformity to circuit court rule 30. The testimony of a prior difficulty between the joint defendan......
-
Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
...order and drawing of the special venire was without prejudice to defendant. Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 17......
-
Whittle v. State, 3 Div. 462
...708, 709, amending section 6256 of Code 1907; Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Clayton v. State, 78 So. 462; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387. However, in the order of May 18, 1920, o......
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...Court Rule 27; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; [154 So. 115.] Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Vann State, 207 Ala. 152, 92 So. 182." In view of the change in the statute (Gen. Acts ......
-
Baxley v. State, 4 Div. 701
...to the contrary, it will be presumed that all of the proceedings in this regard were regular. Acts 1915, p. 708; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789. Besides, the judgment entry shows conformity to circuit court rule 30. The testimony of a prior difficulty between the joint defendan......