Carleton v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1893 |
| Citation | 100 Ala. 130,14 So. 472 |
| Parties | CARLETON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; Samuel E. Green Judge.
Will Carleton was convicted of assault with intent to rob, and appeals. Affirmed.
The bill of exceptions shows that the defendant demurred to the indictment on the ground that there was duplicity, in that the indictment charged two separate and distinct offenses. The bill of exceptions recites that this demurrer was overruled, and the defendant excepted. This is the only reference to the ruling of the court upon the demurrer contained in the record. On the trial of the cause, as is shown by the bill of exceptions, the state introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant was guilty of an assault with intent to rob. After this evidence, and when the state introduced another witness, the defendant moved the court to restrict the state to the examination of said witness, as to the assault with intent to rob, which was testified to by the former witness. The court overruled this motion, and the defendant duly excepted. This presents the only other exception to the ruling of the court, as shown by the bill of exceptions.
Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to rob. There were two counts in the indictment. The first charged that the assault was made with the intent to rob, and the second that it was made with the intent to murder. The action of the primary court upon a demurrer to an indictment ordinarily will not be revised by this court when the only evidence of its existence and the action of the court thereon is the recital in the bill of exceptions. 3 Brick. Dig. p 78, §§ 6, 7. Such is the condition of the record before us. We would have no hesitation in declaring, however, if the question had been properly raised, that the ruling of the court, as recited in the bill of exceptions, was free from error. Section 4383 of the Criminal Code provides that "when an offense may be committed with different intents, such intents may be alleged in the same count in the alternative;" and by section 4385 it is declared "When offenses are of the same character, and subject to the same punishment, the defendant may be charged with the commission of either in the same count in the alternative" What may be charged in one count of an indictment in the alternative, may certainly be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State
...by an unascertained fact, in some cases charging the punishment, they may be charged in separate counts" — citing Carleton v. State, 100 Ala. 130, 14 South. 472; Territory v. Duffield, 1 Ariz. 62, 25 Pac. 476; Bridges v. State, 37 Ark. 224; Murray v. State, 25 Fla. 528, 6 South. 498; Territ......
-
Barefield v. State
...will not be held to have elected by the mere introduction of evidence which sustains one or more of the several charges. Carleton v. State, 100 Ala. 131, 14 So. 472; Untreinor v. State, 146 Ala. 133, 41 So. 170. indictment not only charges an unlawful sale, but charges in the alternative th......
-
Davidson v. State
... ... continuous transaction. Hamilton v. State, 153 Ala ... 63, 44 So. 968; Willis v. State, 134 Ala. 429, 33 ... So. 226. The purpose of joining in an indictment two or more ... counts is to prevent the application of the doctrine of ... election (Carleton v. State, 100 Ala. 130, 14 So ... 472); and where, out of precaution to meet every aspect of a ... single offense, an indictment charges distinct crimes, and no ... attempt is made to convict the accused of disconnected ... offenses, the state will not be compelled to elect ... Butler v ... ...
-
Untreiner v. State
... ... 273. And when, as here, there are several counts, and ... evidence is offered tending to prove the separate and ... distinct offenses as alleged in each, the doctrine of ... election does not apply until there has been an election by ... the prosecution under each separate count. Carleton v ... State, 100 Ala. 130, 14 So. 472; Elam v. State, ... 26 Ala. 48; Wooster v. State, supra. Applying this principle ... to the facts as shown by the testimony, there was no error ... committed by the trial court in overruling the motion to ... exclude the evidence tending to show other ... ...