Coleman v. State
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | HARALSON, J. |
| Citation | 43 So. 715,150 Ala. 64 |
| Parties | COLEMAN v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1907 |
43 So. 715
150 Ala. 64
COLEMAN
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Alabama
April 28, 1907
Appeal from Hale County Court; W. C. Christian, Judge.
Luther Coleman was convicted of selling whisky without a license, and he appeals. Affirmed.
De Graffenreid & Evans, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
HARALSON, J.
The indictment, in its first count, charged defendant in Code form, with selling whisky without a license and contrary to law.
The second count, a little more specific than the first, but containing the averments of the first, gave the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold, or for whom it was procured, or whom he aided in procuring the same.
The first count was demurred to on the ground that the indictment failed to allege the name of the person to whom the alleged sale was made, and to whom and where the same was sold, or when defendant procured or aided the party named in procuring the liquors.
That the indictment is in Code form (No. 79), or, that it is not sanctioned by sections 5076 and 5077 of the Code of 1896, is not questioned; but the contention is, that the statute authorizing the form of indictment, and dispensing with any allegation as to the name of the person to whom the alleged sale was made, and when and where made, is unconstitutional and void, being in violation of the Bill of Rights, which secures to the defendant the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
This is not a new question, and has been [43 So. 716.] long ago, and repeatedly, since, determined against the contention of appellant. Noles v. State, 24 Ala. 672; Mayo v. State, 30 Ala. 32; Cochran v. State, 30 Ala. 546; Bailey v. State, 99 Ala. 145; Jones v. State, 136 Ala. 122, 123, 34 So. 236; Guarreno v. State (Ala.) 42 So. 833.
Nor was it necessary to allege the name of the person to whom the liquor was sold, nor the particular time or place at which it was sold. Authorities supra; Caldwell v. State (Ala.) 41 So. 473; Lee v. State (Ala.) 41 So. 677.
No error appearing, the judgment below is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. State, 8 Div. 322.
...v. State, 95 Ala. 31, 11 So. 158; Huffman v. State, 89 Ala. 33, 8 So. 28; Bailey v. State, 99 Ala. 143, 13 So. 566; Coleman v. State, 150 Ala. 64, 43 So. 715; Jinright v. State, 220 Ala. 268, 125 So. 606; Doss v. State, supra; Malloy v. State, 209 Ala. 219, 96 So. 57. It therefore follows t......
-
Stokley v. State, 2 Div. 283
...34 Wyo. 175, 242 P. 411; Agnes v. People, 104 Colo. 527, 93 P.2d 891. To like effect see Noles v. State, 24 Ala. 672; Coleman v. State, 150 Ala. 64, 43 So. 715; Walker v. State, 150 Ala. 87, 43 So. 188. We might add that in the federal courts one charged in an indictment as a principal may ......
-
Lacy v. State, 157
...of the statute. Davis v. State, 141 Ala. 84, 37 So. 454, 109 Am.St.Rep. 19; Johnson v. State, 152 Ala. 46, 44 So. 670; Coleman v. State, 150 Ala. 64, 43 So. 715; Monroe v. State, 111 Ala. 22, 20 So. 634; Wall v. State, 2 Ala.App. 157, 56 So. 57; Gleason v. State, 6 Ala.App. 49, 60 So. 518; ......
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 722
...right of the defendant can be impaired by sustaining the indictment in its present form.' The short opinion in Coleman v. State, 1907, 150 Ala. 64, 43 So. 715, 'Haralson, J. The indictment, in its first count, charged defendant in Code form, with selling whiskey without a license and contra......