Ellis v. Pope
Decision Date | 13 November 1997 |
Citation | 709 So.2d 1161 |
Parties | Jim ELLIS, as circuit clerk of Coffee County; and Frank Gregory, as director of the Administrative Office of Courts v. Larry POPE, et al. 1961789. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Tori L. Adams-Burks, asst. atty. gen., for appellants.
Jeff W. Kelley of Lindsey, Kelley & McClung, Elba; Paul A. Young, Enterprise; and J. Stafford Pittman, Jr., Enterprise, for appellees.
Larry Pope, Billy Ray Farris, and James Keith Johnson, civil and criminal defendants in actions presently pending in Coffee County, filed a declaratory judgment action asking that Act No. 96-454, Acts of Alabama 1996, be declared unconstitutional. That Act concerns the manner in which juries are selected in Coffee County, which has two judicial divisions: the Elba Division and the Enterprise Division. Jim Ellis, the circuit clerk of Coffee County, and Frank Gregory, the administrative director of courts, appeal from the trial court's judgment declaring Act No. 96-454 unconstitutional.
Act No. 96-454 provides the following:
Thus, Act No. 96-454 requires that a Coffee County jury be drawn from the entire county's population, rather than from the population of that division of Coffee County wherein the trial is being held, i.e., the Elba Division or the Enterprise Division.
The trial court held that Act 96-454 violated Art. I, § 6, and Art. IV, § 105, of the Alabama Constitution. Art. I, § 6, provides, in part:
"[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to ... [a trial] by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense was committed...."
Art IV, § 105, provides:
"No special, private, or local law, except a law fixing the time of holding courts, shall be enacted in any case which is provided for by a general law, or when the relief sought can be given by any court of this state; and the courts, and not the legislature, shall judge as to whether the matter of said law is provided for by a general law, and as to whether the relief sought can be given by any court; nor shall the legislature indirectly enact any such special, private, or local law by the partial repeal of a general law."
The general act with which the trial court found Act 96-454 to conflict, § 12-16-44, Ala.Code 1975, requires that a jury venire be drawn from the division where the action is tried, rather than from the county at large. Section 12-16-44 provides:
On appeal, Ellis and Gregory argue that the trial court erred in declaring Act No. 96-454 unconstitutional; they also argue that the declaratory judgment action was an improper vehicle for deciding this issue. We hold that the declaratory judgment action was a proper method for testing the constitutionality of Act No. 96-454. See Ala.Code 1975, § 6-6-223; Tillman v. Sibbles, 292 Ala. 355, 294 So.2d 436 (1974). Regarding the constitutionality of Act No. 96-454, we refer to the well-reasoned and thorough order of the trial court, a portion of which we quote below and adopt as this Court's opinion on the issues regarding Act No. 96-454:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Seven Up Bottling Co.
...tax Chase, an out-of-state national bank, in the absence of additional action by the Alabama legislature." This Court, in Ellis v. Pope, 709 So.2d 1161 (Ala.1997), reaffirmed Siegelman, Ex parte Dixie Tool & Die, and Ex parte Louisville & N.R.R., insofar as those cases require that we look ......
-
Abbott Laboratories v. Durrett
...tax Chase, an out-of-state national bank, in the absence of additional action by the Alabama legislature." This Court, in Ellis v. Pope, 709 So.2d 1161 (Ala.1997), reaffirmed Siegelman, Ex parte Dixie Tool & Die, and Ex parte Louisville & N.R.R., insofar as those cases require that we look ......
-
Belisle v. State
...juries were not drawn from the correct division—the Albertville Division. He cites the Alabama Supreme Court's opinion in Ellis v. Pope, 709 So.2d 1161 (Ala.1998), to support his Belisle did not bring this matter to the circuit court's attention; therefore, we are limited to applying a plai......
-
Glass v. City of Montgomery
...105 challenge only when there is a "unique" local need not substantially 20 provided for by the general laws, and he cites Ellis v. Pope, 709 So.2d 1161 (Ala. 1997), in support of this proposition. Importantly, however, Ellis's persuasive power is limited by the fact that (1) unlike the Act......
-
ALABAMA OBSCURA: BARNETT V. JONES, GLASS V. CITY OF MONTGOMERY, AND CORPUS LINGUISTICS: A POTENTIAL PATH TO UNCLOUDING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF SECTION 105 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ALABAMA OF 1901.
...Standard Oil Co. of Kentucky v. Limestone Cnty., 124 So. 523, 526 (Ala. 1929)). (36 )Id. at *7. (37 )Id. Glass cited Ellis v. Pope, 709 So. 2d 1161 (Ala. 1997), for his proposition that a unique local need is required. (38 )Id. (citing King v. Campbell, 988 So. 2d 969, 980 (Ala. 2007)). (39......