Dailey v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1926 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 449 |
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 516,109 So. 892 |
| Parties | DAILEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1926
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; J.E. Horton, Judge.
Julius Dailey was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
S.A. Lynne, of Decatur, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Robt. G. Tate, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
From a judgment of conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, defendant appealed. The jury fixed his punishment at 10 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, and sentence was entered accordingly.
State's demurrer to appellant's plea in abatement was properly sustained. Reeves v. State, 17 Ala.App. 684, 88 So. 197; Garner v. State, 206 Ala. 56, 89 So. 69. There was no merit in the motion to quash the venire; it was therefore properly overruled. Sections 8630, 8637, Code 1923.
The question of a continuance of a trial on the grounds of absent witness is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. In declining to grant the motion of defendant in this case for a continuance no abuse of the discretionary powers of the court appears. The only ruling of the court invoked upon the admission of evidence was without error.
The court's oral charge was able, full, and fair, and, when taken as a whole, was not subject to the exceptions reserved. There is no merit in the exceptions noted. In addition to the complete and comprehensive oral charge, the court gave, at the instance of defendant, about twenty-five special written charges. These charges, coupled with the oral charge, fully covered such of the refused charges as stated correct propositions of law. By the oral and given charges every phase of the law governing all the issues involved upon this trial were correctly stated.
The facts adduced upon the trial presented a question for the jury. We discover no error in the refusal to grant the motion for a new trial.
The record appears regular. Let the judgment appealed from stand affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullins v. State, 8 Div. 147.
... ... less than twenty days before the beginning of the special ... session of said court, in violation of section 8617, Code ... 1923, is without merit. Fleming v. State, 20 Ala ... App. 481, 104 So. 137, certiorari denied 213 Ala. 78, 104 So ... 139; section 8636, Code of Alabama 1923; Dailey v ... State, 21 Ala. App. 516, 109 So. 892 ... In ... Bell v. Terry, 213 Ala. 160, 104 So. 336, it was ... held that the venire of jurors should not be quashed except ... on motion and proof in the circuit court showing fraud in ... filling the jury box, or in drawing or summoning ... ...
-
Dixon v. State
... ... where it appears that no fraud entered into the drawing of ... the panel, no objection can be taken to the venire, except in ... cases where the drawing was not done by the officer ... designated by law to draw the same. Code 1923, §§ 8630, 8636, ... and 8637; Dailey v. State, 21 Ala. App. 516, 109 So ... 892; Mullins v. State, 24 Ala. App. 78, 130 So. 527 ... Hon. H ... A. Pearce, judge of the circuit in which was Geneva county, ... is the officer designated by law to draw the venire for the ... circuit court, and the fact that he acted on two ... ...
-
Wilson v. State, 4 Div. 88
...neglected to give personal notice or to leave written notice at the place of residence, was properly overruled. In Dailey v. State, 21 Ala.App. 516, 109 So. 892, the court held there was no merit in the ground of motion to quash the venire that the sole and only method used to notify jurors......
-
Dailey v. State
...Petition of Julius Dailey for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in Dailey v. State, 109 So. 892. denied. SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, THOMAS, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur. ...