Bates v. State
| Decision Date | 17 January 1911 |
| Parties | BATES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lowndes County; J. C. Richardson, Judge.
Fielder (alias Felder) Bates was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Alex D Pitts, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the second degree. The jury acting within the court's instructions, declined to fix the punishment, but left that for the court. The court sentenced defendant to hard labor for the term of one year. In this the court transcended its authority and committed reversible error. The punishment should have been assessed by the jury.
Section 7092 of the Criminal Code of 1907 provides that: "Any person who is convicted of manslaughter in the first degree must, at the discretion of the jury, be imprisoned in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than ten years and any person who is convicted of manslaughter in the second degree must, at the discretion of the jury, be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than one year, and may also be fined not more than five hundred dollars." This language is plain, and requires that any person convicted of manslaughter in the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, and that the jury shall fix the term of the punishment within the limit of one year. Identical language is used in prescribing the punishment for manslaughter in the first degree, and much the same in respect to the punishment for murder in the first and second degree. It has never been supposed that the jury might in such cases leave the amount of the punishment to be fixed by the court. This court held, in Bankhead v. State, 124 Ala. 14, 26 So. 979, that in all cases of unlawful homicide the punishment must be fixed by the jury trying the case, and that the court could not relieve the jury of that responsibility.
It is stated by counsel that the court below was influenced by a supposed analogy to the case of petit larceny. In that case the statute (section 7325 of the Code) provides that, on conviction, the defendant "must be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, for not more than twelve months, and may also be fined not more than five hundred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Headrick v. State, 7 Div. 75
...duty and responsibility. Powell v. State, 30 Ala.App. 606, 10 So.2d 867; Ex parte Wesley, 31 Ala.App. 323, 16 So.2d 427; Bates v. State, 170 Ala. 26, 54 So. 432; Bankhead v. State, 124 Ala. 14, 26 So. 979; Washington v. State, Tit. 15, § 277, Code, 1940, as amended, is not controlling here ......
-
Alford v. State, 8 Div. 169.
... ... Ex parte ... Tanner, supra, 219 Ala. page 8, 121 So. page 424. As stated ... there (Tanner) regarding a similar situation: "The ... court, having directed the jury to fix the punishment, should ... have refused to receive the verdict without a compliance with ... that direction (Bates v. State, 170 Ala. 26, 54 So ... 432; Washington v. State, 125 Ala. 40, 28 So. 78)." This ... the trial court did, is what he should have done, and all he ... could do. There is nothing to the point of jeopardy ... Moreover, as to the contention that jeopardy prevailed as to ... ...
-
Thomas v. State, 6 Div. 847
...verdict of the jury, is error. McKinney v. State, 17 Ala.App. 474, 86 So. 121; Hawes v. State, 19 Ala.App. 280, 97 So. 114; Bates v. State, 170 Ala. 26, 54 So. 432." Inasmuch as the trial court here fixed the punishment instead of having this done by the trial jury, reversible error occurre......
-
Wilkerson v. State
... ... might add, on our own account, here, that the court, having ... directed the jury to fix the punishment, should have refused ... to receive the verdict without a compliance with that ... direction, and his acceptance of the verdict under such ... circumstances was error. Bates v. State, 170 Ala ... 26, 54 So. 432; Washington v. State, 125 Ala. 40, 28 ... So. 78. And see Tanner v. State, 23 Ala.App. 116, ... 121 So. 693; Smith v. State, 23 Ala.App. 72, 121 So ... 692; and Ex parte Tanner, 219 Ala. 7, 121 So. 423 ... It ... seems scarcely worth remarking ... ...