Ex parte Richardson
| Decision Date | 16 June 1892 |
| Parties | EX PARTE RICHARDSON. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Petition by Andrew Richardson for habeas corpus and bail. From ruling denying bail, petitioner appeals. Affirmed.
L. W. Martin and John V. Smith, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Petitioner, being held to answer indictment for rape, applied to the judge of probate of Russell county for habeas corpus and bail. The writ issued, petitioner was brought before the judge of probate, a hearing was had, and bail denied. On the hearing many witnesses were examined ore tenus touching petitioner's guilt of the crime laid in the indictment. The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that defendant was guilty as charged in such sort that the finding of guilt thereon by a jury on final trial would not be disturbed by the court; or, in other words, the evidence for the state was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty on a trial in the circuit court. On the other hand, the evidence for the petitioner tended to show an alibi, and as a witness in his own behalf he testified that he did not commit the act charged against him. To this state of case, the rule laid down for the guidance of primary courts, that bail should be refused whenever, on the evidence adduced, a trial judge would sustain their verdict of a jury pronouncing the accused guilty and imposing the punishment of death, is applicable. Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268; Ex parte McAnally, 53 Ala. 495; Ex parte Brown, 65 Ala. 446; Ex parte Allen, 55 Ala. 258; Ex parte Warrick, 73 Ala. 57; Ex parte Sloane, (Ala.) 11 South. Rep. 14. And this court will not grant bail in such a case, where it has been denied by the primary magistrate on oral evidence, unless such denial appears from the record here to have been manifestly and clearly erroneous. Authorities, supra. The application of these principles to the case at bar leads us to the conclusion that the judge of probate rightly denied petitioner's application for bail, and the same order will be made on the renewal of that application to this court. Application for habeas corpus and bail denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford v. Dilley
......And there are later decisions than those foregoing which put the burden on the respondent. In Ex parte Smith, 23 Tex. App. 100, 5 S. W. 99, the Texas court, two to one, held that the burden is upon the accused. There was a most powerful dissent by the ...See Jernagin v. State, 118 Ga. 307, 45 S. E. 411;Lester v. State, 33 Ga. 192; Ex parte Richardson, 96 Ala. 110, 11 South. 316;State v. Zummo, 115 La. 456, 39 South. 442. Ex parte McAnally, 53 Ala. 495, 25 Am. Rep. 646. The reason ......
-
Ford v. Dilley
...... foregoing, which put the burden on the respondent. . . In. Ex parte Smith , (Tex.) 23 Tex. Ct. App. 100, 5 S.W. 99, the Texas court, two to one, held that the burden is upon. the accused. There was a most powerful ...See Jernagin. v. State , (Ga.) 118 Ga. 307, 45 S.E. 411; Lester v. State , 33 Ga. 192; Ex parte Richardson , (Ala.). 96 Ala. 110, 11 So. 316; State v. Zummo , (La.) 115. La. 456, 39 So. 442; Ex parte McAnally , 53 Ala. 495. The reason for this is that ......
-
Ex parte Key
...... it has been denied by the primary court on oral evidence will. not be granted by this court unless it appears that the. denial by the primary court was manifestly and clearly. erroneous. Exparte McAnally, 53 Ala. 495, 25 Am. Rep. 646; Ex. parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268; Ex parte Richardson, 96 Ala. 110,. 11 So. 316. And it is our conclusion that the judge of. probate properly admitted the dying declaration; that with it. in evidence there was sufficient evidence to show a probable. [5 Ala.App. 280] cause for holding the petitioner to answer. the charge; that the application for ......
-
Roan v. State
...... the proof is evident or the presumption great that the. offense was murder in the first degree and might be punished. capitally. Ex parte Nettles, 58 Ala. 268; Ex parte McAnally,. 53 Ala. 495, 25 Am. Rep. 646. . . The. burden rested on the state to prove the crime, that it ... denial appears from the record to have been manifestly. erroneous. We do not so find it in this case. Ex parte. Richardson, 96 Ala. 110, 11 So. 316; Ex parte Key, 5 Ala. App. 274, 59 So. 331. . . The. order denying the writ is affirmed. . . ......