Charley v. State, 1 Div. 132

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, J.
Citation204 Ala. 687,87 So. 177
PartiesCHARLEY v. STATE.
Decision Date02 December 1920
Docket Number1 Div. 132

87 So. 177

204 Ala. 687

CHARLEY
v.
STATE.

1 Div. 132

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 2, 1920


Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Joel W. Goldsby, Judge.

Dan Charley was convicted of murder in first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J.C. Crouch, of Mobile, for appellant.

J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS, J.

The indictment was for murder in the first degree against defendant [87 So. 178] Dan Charley, and his punishment was fixed at "death by hanging."

The record recites an order of severance; whether at the instance of defendant or by the court ex mero motu is not stated. When two or more persons are jointly indicted, there is no inherent right in either of the defendants to demand a joint trial with his codefendants; and if there is no demand for a separate trial as provided by statute (Code, § 7842), whether the trial shall be joint or several rests within the sound discretion of the court. Wilkins v. State, 112 Ala. 55, 21 So. 56; Jackson v. State, 104 Ala. 1, 16 So. 523; Wright v. State, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55, 42 Am.Rep. 95; Palmer v. State, 15 Ala.App. 262, 73 So. 139; Ex parte Palmer (denying writ of certiorari) 198 Ala. 693, 73 So. 1001; Rule 31, Code, vol. 2, p. 1525. The court committed no error in ordering severance as to defendant, Dan Charley, in his separate arraignment, and in setting his case for trial after his plea of "not guilty."

The distinction between the act of August 31, 1909 (Laws 1909, p. 305), and that of September 29, 1919 (Laws 1919, p. 1039) as to what should constitute the venire in capital cases was the subject of discussion in Walker v. State, 85 So. 787. In the instant case no question was raised in the court below as to the sufficiency of the venire, and the order of the court as to the venire is not presented for review. That order need not have been a part of the record proper. Anderson v. State, 85 So. 789; Hendley v. State, 200 Ala. 546, 76 So. 904; Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Waldrop v. State, 185 Ala. 20, 64 So. 80; Acts 1915, p. 708; Sup.Ct.Rule 27, as amended March 23, 1918, 198 Ala. xv, 77 South. vii.

The confession of the defendant was admitted in evidence after a proper predicate was laid showing it to have been voluntary. Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 82 So. 489, 492. No objections were made to the introduction in evidence of the several confessions of defendant and his coconspirators; and as to this ruling nothing is presented for review, as would have been the case if due exception had been reserved on the trial. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1922
    ...State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 639, 89 So. 43. A careful consideration of the evidence ......
  • Powell v. State, 8 Div. 322.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 24, 1932
    ...v. State, 104 Ala. 1, 16 So. 523; Wright v. State, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Wilkins v. State, 112 Ala. 55, 21 So. 56; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177. This brings us down to a consideration of appellants' motion for a change of venue in the cause, which was made by the appellants......
  • Holsemback v. State, 7 Div. 156
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 1, 1983
    ...the rule at common law. Jackson v. State, 104 Ala. 1, 16 So. 523 (1894); Hawkins v. State, 9 Ala. 137 (1846). See also Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177 (1920); Palmer v. State, 15 Ala.App. 262, 73 So. 139, cert. denied, 198 Ala. 693, 73 So. 1001 In this state, we have found only t......
  • Jarvis v. State, 1 Div. 527.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 25, 1930
    ...211 Ala. 388, 393, 100 So. 657; Milton v. State, 213 Ala. 449, 105 So. 209; Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 82 so. 489; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706, Birchfield v. State, 217 Ala. 225, 115 So. 297; Morton v. State, 206 Ala. 300, 89 So. 65......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • November 2, 1922
    ...State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179; Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 639, 89 So. 43. A careful consideration of the evidence ......
  • Powell v. State, 8 Div. 322.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 24, 1932
    ...v. State, 104 Ala. 1, 16 So. 523; Wright v. State, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Wilkins v. State, 112 Ala. 55, 21 So. 56; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177. This brings us down to a consideration of appellants' motion for a change of venue in the cause, which was made by the appellants......
  • Holsemback v. State, 7 Div. 156
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 1, 1983
    ...the rule at common law. Jackson v. State, 104 Ala. 1, 16 So. 523 (1894); Hawkins v. State, 9 Ala. 137 (1846). See also Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177 (1920); Palmer v. State, 15 Ala.App. 262, 73 So. 139, cert. denied, 198 Ala. 693, 73 So. 1001 In this state, we have found only t......
  • Jarvis v. State, 1 Div. 527.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • January 25, 1930
    ...211 Ala. 388, 393, 100 So. 657; Milton v. State, 213 Ala. 449, 105 So. 209; Curry v. State, 203 Ala. 239, 82 so. 489; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Stone v. State, 208 Ala. 50, 93 So. 706, Birchfield v. State, 217 Ala. 225, 115 So. 297; Morton v. State, 206 Ala. 300, 89 So. 65......
  • 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