Ex parte Burt
| Decision Date | 30 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 531. |
| Citation | 212 Ala. 96,101 So. 770 |
| Parties | EX PARTE JOHN BURT. v. STATE. BURT |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Petition of John Burt for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Burt v. State, 101 So. 768. Writ denied.
E. O. McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for petitioner.
Harwell G Davis, Atty. Gen., opposed.
We think that the writ should be denied for the reason that the defendant was not entitled to have the prosecution against him dismissed because of his appearance before the grand jury under the circumstances set forth in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. In other words, section 12 of the Acts of 1915, page 12, does not apply to one who voluntarily appears before the grand jury for manufacturing a defense to a criminal prosecution pending against him
We do not wish to commit this court, however, to the soundness of the other two propositions advanced by the Court of Appeals:
First, that the plea or motion interposed by the defendant was not available because not sworn to. Whether it had to be verified or not the record discloses no demurrer or objection to same.
Second, that this defense, if meritorious, would not be available because the first indictment was quashed or dismissed and he did not appear before the grand jury that returned the second one, notwithstanding the second one was for the identical offense embraced in the first indictment.
Writ denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gipson v. State
...results of the Polygraph. In a case similar on the facts, Burt v. State, 20 Ala.App. 296, 101 So. 768, certiorari denied, Ex parte Burt, 212 Ala. 96, 101 So. 770, defendant asked that he be permitted to testify before the grand jury and to testify against another individual, concerning a li......
-
Grace v. State
...went no further. On the contrary, the Supreme Court, in denying the writ, refers to the pleading as "the plea or motion." Ex parte Burt, 212 Ala. 96, 101 So. 770. In latter case this court did hold that the matter was properly presented by motion to quash. Culbreath v. State, 113 So. 465, a......
-
Thompson v. State, 5 Div. 832.
...4635, of the Code 1923. Numerous other statutes of like import could be cited. Burt v. State, 20 Ala. App. 296, 101 So. 768; Ex parte Burt, 212 Ala. 96, 101 So. 770; v. State, 22 Ala. App. 143, 113 So. 465. In the Culbreath Case, supra, this court said: "The motion to quash was the proper r......
-
Cole v. State, 6 Div. 850
... ... point of decision, no immunity inured to defendant under the ... provision of the statute relied upon. The case of Burt v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 296, 101 So. 768, certiorari denied ... 212 Ala. 96, 101 So. 770, is conclusive on this point ... Further discussion of ... ...