Buford v. State

Citation214 Ala. 457,108 So. 74
Decision Date18 March 1926
Docket Number6 Div. 612
PartiesBUFORD v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

Rehearing Denied April 22, 1926

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of Mitchell Buford for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Buford v. State, 108 So. 74. Writ denied.

W Emmett Perry and A.L. King, both of Birmingham, for petitioner.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robt. G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Writ denied.

ANDERSON C.J., and SAYRE, GARDNER, and MILLER, JJ., concur.

On Rehearing.

SAYRE J.

This was an appeal to the Court of Appeals on the record in a criminal case. There was no bill of exceptions. Defendant was charged with carnal knowledge of a girl over 12, and under 16, years of age. A minute entry of the circuit court shows that a trial was had upon defendant's plea that "he was under 16 years of age at the time of the alleged offense," and that the issue so made was found in favor of the state. But on that verdict no judgment was pronounced. The section of the Criminal Code under which defendant was indicted (section 5411 of the Code of 1923) provides in conclusion that "this section, however, shall not apply to boys under sixteen years of age." The record further shows that on the next succeeding day defendant was arraigned, pleaded not guilty, and was convicted by the verdict of a jury. On this verdict judgment of guilt was pronounced and sentence passed in strict accordance with law as ascertained and established by the decisions of this court. Wright v. State, 15 So. 506, 103 Ala. 95. The complaint now is that the judgment entry showing the first trial fails to disclose a proper judgment, and is void.

We would find no difficulty in agreeing with defendant that a reversal should be ordered, if the judgment of which he complains constituted the only adjudication of guilt to be found in the record. Defendant's plea on which the first trial was had was in legal effect a special plea of not guilty, i.e., it denied one fact necessary to guilt, thereby perhaps, conceding all else. But on the next day the rest of the charge against defendant was tried with a like result. For aught shown by the record, defendant had a second opportunity to deny that he was over 16 years of age at the time of the offense charged, and, whether so or not, he cannot be heard to complain that, at his instance, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Rieber v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 17, 1994
    ... ...         " 'A defendant cannot by his own voluntary conduct invite error and then seek to profit thereby. Boutwell v. State, 279 Ala. 176, 183 So.2d 774 (1966); Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 179 So.2d 51 (1965); Buford v. State, 214 Ala. 457, 108 So. 74 (1926); Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 56, 43 So. 808 (1907). "It would be a sad commentary upon the vitality of the judicial process if an accused could render it improper by his own choice." Aldridge, 278 Ala. at 474, 179 So.2d at 54; Jackson v. State, 38 ... ...
  • Whitehead v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 27, 1999
    ... ... "`"A defendant cannot by his own voluntary conduct invite error and then seek to profit thereby. Boutwell v. State, 279 Ala. 176, 183 So.2d 774 (1966) ; Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 179 So.2d 51 (1965) ; Buford v. State, 214 Ala. 457, 108 So. 74 (1926); Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 56, 43 So. 808 (1907). `It would be a sad commentary upon the vitality of the judicial process if an accused could render it improper by his own choice.' Aldridge, 777 So.2d 827 278 Ala. at 474, 179 So.2d at 54 ; Jackson ... ...
  • Durden v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • June 30, 1980
    ... ... State, Ala.Cr.App., 377 So.2d 1102, cert. denied, Ala., 377 So.2d 1108 (1979): ... "A defendant cannot by his own voluntary conduct invite error and then seek to profit thereby. Boutwell v. State, 279 Ala. 176, 183 So.2d 774 (1966); Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 179 So.2d 51 (1965); Buford v. State, 214 Ala. 457, 108 So. 74 (1926); Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 56, 43 So. 808 (1907)." ... Page 977 ...         Appellant has contended that the affidavits and record indicate that the jury judge did not comply with § 12-16-6, Code of Alabama 1975, in the first place. However, ... ...
  • Rowe v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • August 13, 1993
    ... ...         "A defendant cannot by his own voluntary conduct invite error and then seek to profit thereby. Boutwell v. State, 279 Ala. 176, 183 So.2d 774 (1966); Aldridge v. State, 278 Ala. 470, 179 So.2d 51 (1965); Buford v. State, 214 Ala. 457, 108 So. 74 (1926); Barber v. State, 151 Ala. 56, 43 So. 808 (1907). 'It would be a sad commentary upon the vitality of the judicial process if an accused could render it impotent by his own choice.' Aldridge, 278 Ala. at 474, 179 So.2d at 54; Jackson v. State, 38 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT