Cline v. State
Decision Date | 21 April 1925 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 54 |
Citation | 104 So. 347,20 Ala.App. 578 |
Parties | CLINE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Clair County; O.A. Steele, Judge.
Will Cline was convicted of distilling, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Frank B. Embrey, of Pell City, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant and one Otis Lee were indicted on a charge of manufacturing prohibited liquors at the same time and place. The indictments were separately drawn, but the facts in the case were substantially the same, except as to the identity of the parties. Otis Lee was tried before a jury and convicted. When defendant's case was called at the same term and same week of the court, he made a motion for a continuance, setting out the facts of the former trial of Lee and his conviction before the jury, and that all of the jurors had heard the evidence and verdict in the Lee Case and had therefore become prejudiced in favor of a conviction. The court overruled this motion. There were 25 names on the list of jurors serving for the week, from which defendant was required to select a jury to try his case. Upon being asked by the court, if any juror had a fixed opinion that would bias their verdict, 10 of them answered in the affirmative. Some of the remaining jurors were on the jury trying the Lee Case, and defendant challenged these for cause; these challenges were by the court overruled and defendant excepted. One of the highest duties of a trial court is to see that a defendant is tried before a fair and an unbiased jury of qualified citizens, and when a venireman has sat as a juror in a previous case, involving substantially the same facts, this imports he has formed a fixed opinion that would bias his verdict. Smith v State, 55 Ala. 1; Wickard v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mann v. State
... ... case against this appellant. Such situation is not a ground ... for challenge, and the ruling of the trial judge, in the ... absence of gross abuse, which is not here evident, will not ... be disturbed. Sandlin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 583, 99 ... So. 784; Cline v. State, 20 Ala.App. 578, 104 So ... 347; Sharp v. State, 23 Ala.App. 457, 126 So. 895; ... Davis v. State, 24 Ala.App. 190, 132 So. 458; ... McCleskey v. State, 28 Ala.App. 97, 179 So. 394 ... The ... remaining refused written charges requested by appellant were ... general ... ...
-
Crowden v. State
...defendant upon a consideration of the same facts. Smith v. State, 55 Ala. 1; Wickard v. State, 109 Ala. 45, 19 So. 491; Cline v. State, 20 Ala.App. 578, 104 So. 347; Davis v. State, 24 Ala.App. 190, 132 So. 458; Chiles v. State, 28 Ala.App. 156, 181 So. 128. It has been held error to allow ......
-
Gaskin v. State, 1 Div. 964
...absence of gross abuse, which is not here evident, will not be disturbed. Sandlin v. State, 19 Ala.App. 583, 99 So. 784; Cline v. State, 20 Ala.App. 578, 104 So. 347; Sharp v. State, 23 Ala.App. 457, 126 So. 895; Davis v. State, 24 Ala.App. 190, 132 So. 458; McCleskey v. State, 28 Ala.App. ......
-
McCleskey v. State
... ... jurors will try the cases presented to them in accordance ... with the law as given them in charge by the court, and the ... facts testified to by the witnesses. Sharp v. State, ... 23 Ala.App. 457, 126 So. 895; Seymore v. State, 23 ... Ala.App. 415, 127 So. 239; Cline v. State, 20 ... Ala.App. 578, 104 So. 347; Davis v. State, 24 ... Ala.App. 190, 132 So. 458 ... The ... evidence in the case was without dispute, clearly disclosing ... that the defendant had set up and maintained a gambling ... device known as a "Roscoe." ... Based ... ...