Hanners v. State
| Decision Date | 29 June 1920 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 637 |
| Citation | 88 So. 55,17 Ala.App. 597 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Parties | HANNERS v. STATE. |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J.S. Williams, Judge.
Albert Hanners was charged with murder in the first degree, convicted of manslaughter in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
H.L. Martin, of Ozark, for appellant.
J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment does not show authentication as provided by Code 1907, § 7300, which reads:
"The concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary to find an indictment; and when so found, it must be indorsed 'a true bill' and the indorsement signed by the foreman."
For the failure of the indictment to bear this necessary indorsement, it is not a valid indictment and will not support a judgment of conviction. This identical question has been decided, as here, in the following cases: Memory McMullen v. State, 86 So. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Bilbo v. State, 1 Ala.App. 74, 55 So. 927; Banks v. State, 13 Ala.App. 41, 69 So. 242; Smiley v. State, 11 Ala.App. 67, 65 So. 916; Joyner v. State, 78 Ala. 448; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17, 24, 29 So. 569; Coburn v. State, 151 Ala. 100, 44 So. 58, 15 Ann.Cas. 249.
No valid indictment having been shown, it is unnecessary to consider other questions presented.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Honeycutt v. State
...of this court and the Supreme Court. Citation of a few of these cases will suffice. Ex parte Winston, 52 Ala. 419; Hanners v. State, 17 Ala.App. 597, 88 So. 55; McMullen v. State, 17 Ala.App. 504, 86 So. Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Mose v. State, 35 Ala. 425; Dunn v. State, 1......
-
Sanford v. State, 7 Div. 74.
... ... 'a true bill,' and the indorsement signed by the ... foreman." On this indictment no such indorsement ... appears. It is therefore invalid and, as stated, will not ... support a judgment of conviction. Section 8682, Code of ... Alabama 1923; Ex parte Winston, 52 Ala. 419; Hanners v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 597, 88 So. 55; McMullen v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 So. 175; Whitley v ... State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Mose v. State, ... 35 Ala. 425; Dunn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 64, 94 So ... 786; Bilbo v. State, 1 Ala. App. 74, 55 So. 927; ... Banks v. State, 13 ... ...
-
Layton v. State
... ... It ... is not indorsed "A true bill," nor is it signed by ... the foreman of the grand jury ... The ... requirement of the statute, supra, is mandatory and has been ... so held in numerous decisions of this court and the Supreme ... Court. Ex parte Winston, 52 Ala. 419; Hanners v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 597, 88 So. 55; McMullen v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 So. 175; Whitley v ... State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Mose v. State, ... 35 Ala. 425; Dunn v. State, 19 Ala. App. 64, 94 So ... 786. In Ex parte Winston, supra, Chief Justice Brickell, for ... the court, ... ...
-
Dunn v. State
...State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 So. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Mose v. State, 35 Ala. 425. See also cases cited in Hanners v. State, supra. On trial of this cause numerous exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court; but as the indictment contained in the record is......