Cagle v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1907 |
| Citation | 151 Ala. 84,44 So. 381 |
| Parties | CAGLE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, DeKalb County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Luke Cagle was convicted of selling liquor contrary to law, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Howard & Hunt, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The Constitution and the statute law of the state require that all indictments must conclude "against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." Const. 1901, § 170; Code 1896, § 4893. An indictment which fails to contain the conclusion as stated fails to state an offense and will not support a conviction. The indictment as shown by the record in this case does not contain the conclusion required, and therefore the judgment of conviction must be reversed.
We note, too, that the second count in the indictment fails to contain the necessary averments that the sale was "without a license and contrary to law."
The juror Jackoway, having been accepted by the state and the defendant, was not subject to peremptory challenge by either side, and the court committed reversible error in allowing the solicitor, against defendant's objection, to challenge him peremptorily. Bob Andrews v. State, 44 So. 696.
The questions to the state's witness Campbell, "Did you use it as a substitute for liquor?" and, "Did you drink it for the alcohol that was in it?" called for the reasons and intention of the witness, and should not have been allowed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. State
... ... challenge." ... Dixon ... v. State, 143 So. 855, 164 Miss. 540; Gibson v ... State, 12 So. 582, 70 Miss. 554 ... The ... ruling of the court in this instance constitutes reversible ... Stewart ... v. State, 50 Miss. 587; Cagle v. State, 44 So ... 381, 151 Ala. 84; Andrews v. State, 44 So. 696, 152 Ala. 16 ... The act ... of allowing the state to peremptorily challenge Tom Thrasher, ... a juror who had formerly been accepted by both the state and ... defendant, was an absolute disregard of section 1277 of ... ...
-
Coker v. State
... ... general affirmative charge, which is predicated on the ... evidence in the case, can perform the office of a demurrer; ... that is, question the sufficiency of the indictment ... This ... case is distinguishable from the Cagle Case, 151 Ala. 84, 44 ... So. 381, and Isbell's Case (Ala. App.) 90 So. 55, in that ... there was no good count in either of these cases, and nothing ... but a count which would not support a conviction, while in ... the case at bar there was a good count. Moreover, in the case ... at bar, the ... ...
-
Duin v. State
...would not, absent the identity of the seller, support a conviction the court erred in refusing either of these charges. Cagle v. State, 151 Ala. 84, 44 So. 381. From Shelton v. State, 143 Ala. 98, 39 So. 377 (often yoked with Cagle, supra), we also '* * * As it (count 2 of the indictment) c......
-
Murray v. State
...State, 55 Ala. 1; Daniels v. State, 88 Ala. 222, 7 So. 337; Harris v. State, 177 Ala. 17, 59 So. 205; Cagle v. State, 151 Ala. 84, h. n. 2, 44 So. 381; Andrews State, 152 Ala. 16, 44 So. 696. The entire 12 jurors thus selected were each on the venire facias. Eleven had been held competent a......