Dean v. State
Decision Date | 13 February 1940 |
Docket Number | 4 Div. 489. |
Citation | 29 Ala.App. 401,197 So. 51 |
Parties | DEAN v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied March 12, 1940.
Affirmed on Mandate June 18, 1940.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
Arlin Dean was convicted of arson in the third degree, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Certiorari granted by Supreme Court in Dean v. State, 4 Div. 145, 197 So. 53.
Mulkey & Mulkey, of Geneva, for appellant.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Francis M. Kohn, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The indictment was in three counts. To the first count the defendant interposed demurrer, which, being confessed by the State, was sustained; thereby eliminating the first count of the indictment, making it unnecessary for us to pass upon any question solely on the first count.
The second and third counts were as follows:
To these two counts defendant interposed demurrer, taking the point that there is no allegation in the counts that the offense charged was committed subsequent to November 9, 1927, and it does not appear that the offense charged was committed at a time when the same constituted arson in the third degree.
Prior to the passage and approval of Section 3293 of the Code of 1923, and now appearing in Michie's Code as Section 3293, we had no Statute in this State covering the facts as set forth in counts two and three upon which this trial was had. It is only by virtue of the 1927 law, p. 554, supra, that such facts as are alleged when committed constitute arson in the third degree. Under the old section of the code, before amendment, there was no prohibition against a man burning his own property in order to defraud the insurer. Under the arson Statute, as it now exists, arson in the third degree is defined to be:
Under our Statute there is no limitation upon prosecution for arson. Prosecution for arson may be prosecuted without time limit. Code of 1923, Section 4928.
We therefore have an indictment charging an act which prior to September 9, 1927, was not a violation of any law, and an act which after September 9, 1927, became arson in the third degree. It appears therefore that the defendant is charged with a new offense and covers a period both when the thing charged was and was not a violation of the law, and was defective upon appropriate demurrer for a failure to aver the time of the commission of the offense. This rule is recognized and approved by our Supreme Court in an opinion by Anderson, Chief...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Newman v. State
...The propositions raised by the demurrers are practically identical with those involved and presented in the case of Dean v. State, 29 Ala.App. 401, 197 So. 51, the views of this court were expressed by our lamented associate, Judge SAMFORD, and which, as therein appears, were in line with t......
-
City of Birmingham v. Lynch
... ... the doctrine of error without injury. Ex Parte Steverson ... Robinson v. Steverson, 211 Ala. 597, 100 So. 912; ... Allie F. Cleghorn v. State, 219 Ala. 155, 121 So ... 436; Luther Massey et al. v. State, 224 Ala. 584, ... 141 So. 259; Powell v. State, 224 Ala. 584, 141 So ... 260; ... ...
- Dean v. State
- Robertson v. State, 6 Div. 619.