Goulden v. State
Decision Date | 04 June 1974 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 261 |
Citation | 299 So.2d 323,53 Ala.App. 278 |
Parties | Dudley Dee GOULDEN, III, alias v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Charles C. Carlton, Montgomery, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. and David W. Clark, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
First degree forgery: sentence, twenty years. Code 1940, T. 14, §§ 199 & 207.
I
There is no endorsement on the indictment of instant concern. All the record shows after 'against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama' is the signature of the Solicitor (sic) followed by a notation reading. 'Filed in open Court on the 16 February A.D. 1972' with the signature of the clerk thereto.
Code 1940, T. 30, § 89 requires the concurrence of at least tweleve grand jurors to find an indictment. The bill thereof must be indorsed 'a true bill' with the signature of the foreman. See annotations appended to § 89, supra.
In Strickland v. State, 51 Ala.App. 328, 285 So.2d 492, we wrote:
'The general way to accuse a man of a felony is by indictment, Amendment XXXVII, Constitution, which replaced Section 8 thereof. To be an indictment, the accusation must be a writing 'presented' by a grand jury. Code 1940, T. 15, § 228, McGee, Alabama Criminal Practice, p. 93. Being formulary its mode of presentment and its indorsement as a true bill as prescribed by law (Code 1940, T. 15, § 250, and T. 30, § 89) are mandatory, McMullen v. State, 17 Ala.App. 504, 86 So. 175; Roan v. State, 225 Ala. 428, 143 So. 454 (dictum).
'The purported indictment in the record here is only an accusation subscribed by the solicitor without the indorsement 'a true bill,' and for the want thereof does not support the judgment. Thorn v. State, 39 Ala.App. 227, 98 So.2d 859(3); Kennedy v. State, 39 Ala.App. 676, 107 So.2d 913(26); Gould v. State, 29 Ala.App. 57, 191 So. 402. See also Dowdy v. State, 24 Ala.App. 333, 134 So. 896, for a list of other cases.
'* * * In Smiley v. State, 11 Ala.App. 67, 65 So. 916, we find:
* * *'
'Further, Supreme Court Rule 18 puts the burden on the parties, not the court, to perfect the record.'
Thereafter, on failure of a tardy application for dertiorari (see Supreme Court Rule 18) we were cited in the Supreme Court. Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General (re: Strickland v. State) 292 Ala. 751, 292 So.2d 450 (1974). A majority denied the petition.
For the record we wish to point out that we waive Supreme Court Rule 19 to allow the Attorney General to use the original filed copy of a criminal appeal to use in writing his brief. This because the original being the ribbon copy is more legible.
We are aware that the Attorney General has a check list which calls for the examining attorney to check off that the indictment of record carries the endorsement, 'a true bill.' By Michie's Code, T. 13, §§ 229 & 229(1) District Attorneys were charged with the duty of checking evidence transcripts.
In Sashner v. State, 46 Ala.App. 407, 243 So.2d 390, we called attention to Supreme Court Rule 18 and the rationale of Huddleston v. State, 37 Ala.App. 57, 64 So.2d 90; Lipscomb v. State, 37 Ala.App. 379, 68 So.2d 862; and Saylor v. State, 42 Ala.App. 666, 177 So.2d 924.
At some...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Goulden v. State
-
Ex parte Hayes
...Thus, if the requirements of the section are not met, the indictment returned will not support a conviction. See Goulden v. State, 53 Ala.App. 278, 299 So.2d 323, aff'd, 292 Ala. 704, 299 So.2d 325 (1974). Further, it cannot be said that such an error is not one of "substance," when the leg......
-
Pendleton v. State, 6 Div. 881
...'a true bill.' Strickland v. State, 51 Ala.App. 328, 285 So.2d 492, mandamus denied, 292 Ala. 751, 292 So.2d 450; and in Goulden v. State, 53 Ala.App. 278, 299 So.2d 323, cert. denied 292 Ala. 704, 299 So.2d The rationale behind the disallowance of tardy petitions to correct the record is w......