Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 20 December 1900 |
| Citation | 29 So. 200,128 Ala. 12 |
| Parties | BROWN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Washington county; William S. Anderson Judge.
Johnnie Brown was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Reversed.
After the court overruled the motion to quash the venire, the names of the jurors upon the lists served upon the defendant were placed in a hat, each name on a separate slip of paper. The bill of exceptions recites that "the court offered to put the names of George S. Dickson and Z. T. Hill in the hat also, but the defendant's attorney replied that he had no answer to make to the offer, and the names were not placed in the hat." As the organization of the jury proceeded by the drawing of the separate slips of paper with the name of a juror thereon, the name of one J. P. Wheat was called. A juror answered to this name, and, after being duly sworn testified that his name was Joseph P. Wheat; that J. P. Wheat were his initials; that he was generally called Joe; that he received letters and signed checks and other papers as J. P Wheat. Thereupon the defendant moved the court to discard the name of the juror J. P. Wheat, and to order the sheriff to summon from the qualified citizens of the county another juror to fill the place of J. P. Wheat, upon the grounds that there was a misnomer, and because the name Joseph P. Wheat did not appear on the lists served on the defendant. The court overruled this motion, and the defendant duly excepted. There were similar motions and rulings in reference to several of the jurors whose names were drawn from the hat. Upon the introduction of all the evidence, the defendant requested the court to give to the jury, among others, the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "The court charges the jury that, to authorize a conviction in this case, the proof must do more than reasonably satisfy the jury of the guilt of the defendant; it must go to the extent of satisfying the jury of his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt or supposition of innocence." (2) "The court charges the jury that a reasonable doubt may exist although the evidence reasonably satisfies the jury that the defendant is guilty."
C. C Kimbrough and Bromberg & Hall, for appellant.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the 8th day of March, which was Thursday of the first week of the term of the court, the defendant was arraigned upon the indictment, and the 14th day of March, being Wednesday of the following week of the term, was set for the trial of the case. A special venire was drawn, consisting of 25 names which the sheriff was ordered to summon. The court made a further order directing a list of the names to be made, and that the sheriff serve this list of special jurors, with a list of jurors drawn and summoned for the second week and a copy of the indictment, upon the defendant one entire day before the day set for the trial. These orders appear to have been complied with. On the day set for the trial, on motion of defendant, the venire was quashed, and Friday, the 16th, of the same week, was set for the trial of the case. Again a special venire consisting of 25 special jurors was drawn, and an order issued to the sheriff to summon them, and a like order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boatwright v. State
...11; State v. McLendon, 1 Stewart 195; Parsons v. State, 22 Ala. 50; Morgan v. State, 48 Ala. 65; Bain v. State, 70 Ala. 4; Brown v. State, 128 Ala. 12, 29 So. 200; Jackson v. State, 50 So. The case of Roberson v. State, 50 So. 345, from Alabama supreme court recognized the exclusion of Sund......
-
Smith v. State
... ... though they had not been drawn as jurors for that week, but ... were summoned at the time the juries were being organized to ... supply the places of persons who had been drawn, and for any ... reason had failed to appear, or been excused from attendance ... by the court. Code, § 5011; Brown v. State, 128 Ala ... 12, 16, 29 So. 200. These persons were therefore constituents ... of the venire for the trial of the defendant, composed, as ... the statute requires, of the special jurors drawn under ... section 5004 of the Code, "together with the panel of ... petit jurors organized ... ...
- McGrantt v. Baggett
-
Haisten v. State
...So. 11; State v. McLendon, 1 Stew. 195; Parsons v. State, 22 Ala. 50; Morgan v. State, 48 Ala. 65; Bain v. State, 70 Ala. 4; Brown v. State, 128 Ala. 12, 29 So. 200; v. State, 55 So. 118. The manifest object and purpose of the statute is to afford the defendant a reasonable opportunity befo......