Durrett v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1902 |
| Citation | 32 So. 234,133 Ala. 119 |
| Parties | DURRETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Tuscaloosa county court; J. J. Mayfield, Judge.
Ben Durrett was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
In this case, as in the case of Diggs v. State, 77 Ala. 68 the motion in arrest of judgment, and the ruling of the court thereon, do not appear otherwise than from the bill of exceptions. A motion in arrest of judgment is based on error of law apparent on the face of the record. The error or defect is one shown in the record proper,--the record which the law requires to be preserved in permanent form; as, for instance, the judgments of the court. In Diggs v. State supra, it was said: --citing Ex parte Knight, 61 Ala. 482; Petty v. Dill, 53 Ala. 641. See, also, Thomas v. State, 94 Ala. 75.10 So. 432.
The verdict of the jury reads as follows: "We the juror find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, and shall suffer death." While the verdict was not in proper form, yet it was sufficient to support the judgment of the court. Noles v. State, 24 Ala. 672; Id., 26 Ala. 31, 62 Am. Dec. 711; Harrall v. State, 26 Ala. 52; Robinson v. State, 54 Ala. 86.
After issue joined on the plea of not guilty, and the evidence for the state and defendant had closed, the defendant entered into an agreement with the solicitor for the state to withdraw his plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty and for the solicitor to state to the jury that the state would be satisfied with a sentence to life imprisonment as a punishment. This agreement was carried out by the solicitor, but the jury declined to carry it out, and by their verdict imposed the death penalty. It was the province and duty of the jury, under the law, to fix the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roden v. State
...State, 118 Ala. 672, 23 So. 637; Washington v. State, 117 Ala. 30, 23 So. 697; Watkins v. State, 133 Ala. 88, 32 So. 637; Durrett v. State, 133 Ala. 119, 32 So. 234. court, without violating any rule of evidence or practice, could have overruled the motion of the solicitor to exclude the st......
-
Rivers v. State
... ... the record that some question of law had been properly ... reserved for review by the Supreme Court; and that such ... appeal would be dismissed. Ex parte Knight, 61 Ala. [13 ... Ala.App. 367] 482; Bolling v. State, 78 Ala. 469; Ex ... parte Cameron, 81, 88; Durrett v. State, 133 Ala ... 120, 32 So. 234; Diggs v. State, 77 Ala. 68; ... Taylor v. State, 112 Ala. 69, 20 So. 848; ... Woodson v. State, 170 Ala. 88, 54 So. 191; ... Campbell v. State, 182 Ala. 18, 62 So. 57; State ... v. Carter, 7 Ala.App. 2, 60 So. 941; White v ... State, 134 ... ...
-
Mobile Light & R. Co. v. Thomas
...So. 822; Ex parte Knight, 61 Ala. 482; Ex parte Cameron, 81 Ala. 90, 1 So. 20; Odum v. Rutledge, 94 Ala. 495, 10 So. 222; Durrett v. State, 133 Ala. 121, 32 So. 234. One the manifest purposes of the amendment to the statute was to change the "old rule" so as to prevent a duplication of the ......
-
Ledlow v. State, 8 Div. 141.
... ... jury, find the defendant guilty of first degree murder and ... fix the penalty for life in the penitentiary," was a ... compliance with the statute, and was sufficient to support ... the judgment of the court rendered and entered thereon ... Section 4457, Code; Durrett v. State, 133 Ala. 119, ... 32 So. 234; McDonald v. State, 118 Ala. 672, 23 So ... 637; Robinson v. State, 54 Ala. 86; Noles v ... State, 24 Ala. 672; Bankhead v. State, 124 Ala ... 14, 26 So. 976; Brown v. State, 109 Ala. 70, 20 So ... When ... the oral charge is considered as a ... ...