Bowen v. State
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | PELHAM, J. |
| Citation | 62 So. 1022,8 Ala.App. 103 |
| Parties | BOWEN v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 05 June 1913 |
62 So. 1022
8 Ala.App. 103
BOWEN
v.
STATE.
Court of Appeals of Alabama
June 5, 1913
Appeal from City Court of Talladega; Cecil Browne, Judge.
Tom Bowen was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.
[8 Ala.App. 104] R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
PELHAM, J.
It is the better practice for the presiding judge, in examining the persons who appear in court to serve as jurors in a case that may be punished capitally, to examine them separately on their voir dire examinations touching their qualifications and competency, and not to qualify them in a body, as is shown by the bill of exceptions to have been done in this case; but at most this could only be considered as an authorized but ill-chosen expedient adopted by the court for facilitating the trial, for there is no requirement of law that the examinations shall be separately made. The action of the court in this particular, although [62 So. 1023.] shown to be against the objection of the defendant, would not constitute error that would require a reversal of the judgment appealed from.
No exception is shown by the bill of exceptions to have been reserved to any ruling of the court on the evidence, and the few correct propositions of law contained in the refused charges (which are not numbered) are fully covered by the numerous given charges. No contention is made by argument or brief that the record contains error, and our examination fails to show any error for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State, 6 Div. 99
...affect their verdict.' This section was written by the Code Committee as § 8662 of the 1923 Code. It seems to stem from Bowen v. State, 8 Ala.App. 103, 62 So. 1022, where we 'It is the better practice for the presiding judge, in examining the persons who appear in court to serve as jurors i......
-
Flurry v. State, 5 Div. 68
...panel for cause.' Requiring defense counsel to qualify a capital venire as a group does not constitute reversible error. Bowen v. State, 8 Ala.App. 103, 62 So. 1022, quoted and followed in Ward v. State, 44 Ala.App. 229, 206 So.2d Appellant relies on Sanders v. Scarvey, 284 Ala. 215, 224 So......
-
Brake v. State
...the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that he was in danger of suffering grievous bodily harm. Jackson v. State, 78 Ala. 471. [8 Ala.App. 103] The burden is not upon the state to prove that there was open to the defendant a reasonable mode of escape, which he could have taken without......
-
Ward v. State, 6 Div. 99
...affect their verdict.' This section was written by the Code Committee as § 8662 of the 1923 Code. It seems to stem from Bowen v. State, 8 Ala.App. 103, 62 So. 1022, where we 'It is the better practice for the presiding judge, in examining the persons who appear in court to serve as jurors i......
-
Flurry v. State, 5 Div. 68
...panel for cause.' Requiring defense counsel to qualify a capital venire as a group does not constitute reversible error. Bowen v. State, 8 Ala.App. 103, 62 So. 1022, quoted and followed in Ward v. State, 44 Ala.App. 229, 206 So.2d Appellant relies on Sanders v. Scarvey, 284 Ala. 215, 224 So......
-
Brake v. State
...the reasonableness of the defendant's belief that he was in danger of suffering grievous bodily harm. Jackson v. State, 78 Ala. 471. [8 Ala.App. 103] The burden is not upon the state to prove that there was open to the defendant a reasonable mode of escape, which he could have taken without......