Brooks v. State
| Citation | 173 So. 869,234 Ala. 140 |
| Decision Date | 15 April 1937 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 939 |
| Parties | BROOKS et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Geneva County; Robt. S. Reid, Judge.
Elisha B. Brooks, alias Pete Brooks, and Booker T. Washington were convicted of first-degree murder, and they appeal.
Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded for resentence.
A.A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellants, along with one Harrison Brooks, were indicted by a grand jury of Geneva county for the offense of murder in the first degree. The two appellants were jointly tried, and the trial jury found each guilty of murder in the highest degree, and fixed their punishment at death.
There is no bill of exceptions in the record.
The record proper shows indictment in due form, proper arraignment of the defendants, appointment of counsel to represent them, their pleas of not guilty, and not guilty by reason of insanity (interposed by each), due and proper setting of the case for trial, special venire for the trial of the cause, and order requiring service of a copy of the special venire and of the indictment upon each of the defendants, as the law directs in such cases. The record does not show the sheriff's execution of said order. This is unnecessary, as no question as to any failure to serve such copies seems to have been raised before the trial court and there decided. In all the above respects the record proper seems to be entirely regular, and without error.
However the judgment entered, as to each defendant, is defective in that it fails to show that the defendants were asked by the court, if they had anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon them.
It was required at common law, and we have adopted the rule here that before sentence, on a conviction of felony, the prisoner must be interrogated by the court as to whether he has anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon him. 1 Bishop Cr.Pro. § 1118; Crim et al. v. State, 43 Ala. 53; Perry v. State, 43 Ala. 21; Mullen v. State, 45 Ala. 43, 6 Am.Rep. 691; Reynolds v. State, 68 Ala. 502; Spigner v. State, 58 Ala. 421; Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118, 129, 11 S.Ct. 761, 35 L.Ed. 377; 1 Chitty's Crim.Law, 669; Messner v. People, 45 N.Y. 1; James v. State, 45 Miss. 572, 579; Grady v. State, 11 Ga. 253, 257; Schwab v. Berggren, 143 U.S. 442, 12 S.Ct. 525, 36 L.Ed. 218.
It therefore,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dearborn v. Johnson
... ... v. Limestone ... County, 220 Ala. 231, 124 So. 523), and makes no ... references to the general revenue law of the state. It ... neither raises nor reduces any tax. but provides a somewhat ... different machinery in the matter of assessment and ... collection thereof ... ...
-
Brown v. State
...that there is a mandatory responsibility to allow allocution when required by statutory authority or by rule of court. Brooks v. State, 234 Ala. 140, 173 So. 869 (1937); Simmons v. State, 44 Ala.App. 626, 218 So.2d 159 (1969); People v. Swift, 140 Cal.App. 7, 34 P.2d 1041, (1934); People v.......
-
Couch v. United States
...to afford the right necessitated reversal of the judgment and remand for resentencing, though not for a new trial. E. g., Brooks v. State, 234 Ala. 140, 173 So. 869; Keech v. State, supra; People v. Nesce, Some jurisdictions held that allocution was required even in non-capital felony cases......
-
Law v. State
...151 Ala. 118, 44 So. 43. It is not unusual to affirm the judgment of conviction and reverse and remand as to the sentence. Brooks v. State, 234 Ala. 140, 173 So. 869; Ex Robinson, 183 Ala. 30, 63 So. 177. After the opinion in the Cook case, supra, this section of the Code was carried forwar......