Driggers v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1899 |
| Citation | 123 Ala. 46,26 So. 512 |
| Parties | DRIGGERS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Wilcox county court; James T. Beck, Judge.
Ed Driggers was convicted of carrying concealed weapons, and appeals. Affirmed.
On the trial of the cause, Ed Bailey, witness for the state testified that in March, 1897, in Pine Apple beat, in said Wilcox county, he had a difficulty with defendant's half-brother; that shortly afterwards the defendant and 26 other persons came up towards him at the place of difficulty that defendant at the time was in his shirt sleeves, and had the fingers of his right hand in his right side pants pocket in front; that his hand was partly in his pocket, and he did not see the pistol until the defendant drew it from said pocket with his hand; that defendant was on the side of witness when he raised his hand from his pocket with the pistol, and that he was looking at defendant when he raised his hand, but could not see the pistol until he pulled it out, and defendant kept his hand partly in his pocket until the pistol was pulled out; that he could not and would not swear that the pistol was hid or concealed, at that or any other time, from the ordinary observation of a person standing behind the defendant; that he could not see the pistol in front; does not know whether it could have been seen, before drawn, by one behind him or not. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges, and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: (1) "The court charges the jury that if they do not believe beyond a reasonable doubt, from the evidence, that the pistol was concealed from ordinary observation from any person standing on defendant's side, or standing behind defendant, then they must find the defendant not guilty." (2) "The court charges the jury that if the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the pistol was concealed so it could not have been seen from the side, and could not have been seen from behind defendant, then they must find the defendant not guilty." (3) "The court charges the jury that if the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the pistol was concealed on person of defendant so it could not be seen from ordinary observation of a person on the side or behind the defendant, they must find the defendant not guilty." The judgment entry, after reciting that the defendant pleaded not guilty, and the return of a verdict by the jury of guilty as charged in the indictment, in which there was assessed a fine of $100, then recites: "And the defendant not paying the fine and costs in this case, or confessing judgment for the same, it is ordered by the court that in lieu of the fine not being paid, that the defendant Ed Driggers, be taken from the bar of this court to the county jail of Wilcox county, there to be detained by the sheriff of Wilcox county, in his custody, until called for by the person having charge of the Wilcox county convicts sentenced to hard labor; and that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tyson v. State
...from the prior convictions. This State has traditionally held that a valid sentence implies a judgment of guilt. See Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 26 So. 512 (1899); Higginbotham v. State, 20 Ala. App. 159, 101 So. 166 (1924); Walker v. State, 12 Ala.App. 229, 67 So. 719 (1915); Thames v.......
-
Ensor v. State
...the vehicle." Id. at 131, 350 N.E.2d at 83. The Alabama Supreme Court set forth its standard in the early case of Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 49, 26 So. 512, 514 (1899): "(I)f the pistol is carried on the person under such conditions that it is hidden from view from the observation of p......
-
Billingsley v. State, 7 Div. 710
...minute entry is to be given a liberal construction. Carmichael v. State, 213 Ala. 264, 104 So. 638 (1925); Driggers v. State, 123 Ala. 46, 48-49, 26 So. 512, 513 (1898). Thus a judgment entry is not "insufficient or void" because of the omission of words which would merely have made the jud......
-
Shirley v. State
......It has been held by. this court that this sufficiently implies the judgment of. guilt and is a judgment of conviction which will support an. appeal. Ex parte Roberson, 123 Ala. 103, 26 So. 645, 82 Am. St. Rep. 107; Talbert's Case, 140 Ala. 96, 37 So. 78;. Driggers' Case, 123 Ala. 46, 26 So. 512; Wilkinson's. Case, 106 Ala. 28, 17 So. 458. Following these authorities,. it must be held that the judgment is sufficient. . . Before. entering on the trial the defendant moved a quashal of the. indictments and that they be stricken from the files. ......