Creel v. State, 6 Div. 515.

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtRICE, J.
PartiesCREEL v. STATE.
Docket Number6 Div. 515.
Decision Date19 March 1929

124 So. 507

23 Ala.App. 241

CREEL
v.
STATE.

6 Div. 515.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

March 19, 1929


Rehearing Denied June 25, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.

Robert L. Creel was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Creel v. State, 124 So. 510. [124 So. 508]

L. D. Gray and J. M. Pennington, both of Jasper, for appellant.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.

RICE, J.

Appellant, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was tried on April 4, 1928, convicted of the offense of burglary, and given a sentence to serve imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of not less than ten nor more than twenty years.

The defendant was charged by indictment containing three counts; the first charging burglary, the second grand larceny, and the third buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property. This indictment was returned by the grand jury March 3, 1928. Defendant's pleas in abatement A and B, to both of which the state's demurrers were sustained, set up the facts that at the time this indictment was returned, and when the defendant was tried thereon, there was pending in the circuit court in which the defendant was tried another indictment against the defendant, returned December 20, 1927, charging the defendant in two counts with burglary and grand larceny, based upon the same alleged unlawful act as that charged in the indictment on which the defendant was tried and convicted in this cause; that the defendant was put upon trial in said court on the charges embraced in said indictment returned December 20, 1927, on February 14, 1928, and an order of "mistrial" was entered and the jury discharged, in said trial on February 15, 1928, without the consent of the defendant and when there was no manifest necessity for the discharge of said jury.

[23 Ala.App. 243] The defendant filed written application for continuance, sworn to, and based upon the fact that his leading counsel could not assist in the trial of the case on the day the same was set, on account of the death of a very close friend, and because the case had already been tried during the same term of the court, and a mistrial entered. The court overruled the application.

After the verdict of the jury and the sentence of court, the defendant filed motion for new trial, based upon two grounds, viz.: First, the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict; and, second, the allegation that one O. M. Sherer, a jury commissioner, alleged to have been active in soliciting funds with which to employ the special attorneys to assist the solicitor and his assistant in the prosecution of the defendant, sought to, and probably did, exert some influence on members of the jury, against the defendant, after they had been [124 So. 509] impaneled to try the case, by wrongfully making a show of friendship for them, and remarking in their presence, "We have a good-looking jury."

The evidence introduced on behalf of the state tended to show, in consonance with the charge laid in the indictment, that the store of the Cash Grain Company, a partnership composed of J. O. Argo and R. A. Argo, in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...State, 135 Ala. 36, 33 So. 487; Bryant v. State, 185 Ala. 8, 64 So. 333; Mosley v. State, 22 Ala. App. 95, 112 So. 811; Creel v. State, 23 Ala. App. 241, 124 So. 507; Traylor v. State, 20 Ala. App. 262, 101 So. 532. The remark of the court when denying the motion for continuance does not sh......
  • State v. Knight, No. 651
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 17, 1964
    ...There is a sufficient breaking where a person enters a building with a felonious intent by unlocking a door with a key. Creel v. State, 23 Ala.App. 241, 124 So. 507, reh. den. 25 June 1929, cert. den. 220 Ala. 220, 124 So. 510; State v. Wurtz, Mo., 11 S.W.2d 1029; Hawkins v. Com., 284 Ky. 3......
  • Stockard v. State, 6 Div. 132
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 20, 1979
    ...State, 2 Ala.App. 200, 56 So. 844, Any witness, Churchwell v. State, 117 Ala. 124, 23 So. 72. A witness for the state, Creel v. State, 23 Ala.App. 241, 124 So. 507. The charge here is confusing. It refers to the witness. Several witnesses testified on the trial. The charge was also properly......
  • Hayes v. State, 7 Div. 958.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 22, 1930
    ...and those objections to the act duly considered, with the result that the writ of certiorari was denied. Dixon v. State (Ala. App.) 124 So. 507. In view of these decisions nothing further need be said, but, in deference to the earnest insistence of counsel, we briefly add the following obse......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Burns v. State, 6 Div. 965.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • October 6, 1932
    ...State, 135 Ala. 36, 33 So. 487; Bryant v. State, 185 Ala. 8, 64 So. 333; Mosley v. State, 22 Ala. App. 95, 112 So. 811; Creel v. State, 23 Ala. App. 241, 124 So. 507; Traylor v. State, 20 Ala. App. 262, 101 So. 532. The remark of the court when denying the motion for continuance does not sh......
  • State v. Knight, No. 651
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 17, 1964
    ...There is a sufficient breaking where a person enters a building with a felonious intent by unlocking a door with a key. Creel v. State, 23 Ala.App. 241, 124 So. 507, reh. den. 25 June 1929, cert. den. 220 Ala. 220, 124 So. 510; State v. Wurtz, Mo., 11 S.W.2d 1029; Hawkins v. Com., 284 Ky. 3......
  • Stockard v. State, 6 Div. 132
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 20, 1979
    ...State, 2 Ala.App. 200, 56 So. 844, Any witness, Churchwell v. State, 117 Ala. 124, 23 So. 72. A witness for the state, Creel v. State, 23 Ala.App. 241, 124 So. 507. The charge here is confusing. It refers to the witness. Several witnesses testified on the trial. The charge was also properly......
  • Hayes v. State, 7 Div. 958.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • May 22, 1930
    ...and those objections to the act duly considered, with the result that the writ of certiorari was denied. Dixon v. State (Ala. App.) 124 So. 507. In view of these decisions nothing further need be said, but, in deference to the earnest insistence of counsel, we briefly add the following obse......
  • 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