Hardley v. State, 6 Div. 699

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: THOMAS, J.
• Citation: 202 Ala. 24,79 So. 362
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 699
• Decision Date: 16 May 1918
• Parties: HARDLEY v. STATE.

79 So. 362

202 Ala. 24

HARDLEY
v.
STATE.

6 Div. 699

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 16, 1918

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1918

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cullman County; O. Kyle, Judge.

Walter Hardley, alias, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, p. 450, Act of April 18, 1911. Affirmed. [79 So. 363]

Paine Denson, of Cullman, and J.N. Powell, of Falkville, for appellant.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., Emmett S. Thigpen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and A.A. Griffith, of Cullman, for the State.

THOMAS, J.

The indictment was for murder in the first degree. The trial resulted in a verdict and judgment in which the death penalty was imposed. The questions for decision are: (1) The sufficiency of the judgment entry; (2) the overruling of defendant's motion for a change of venue; and (3) the refusal of a written charge requested by the defendant.

This record shows that the trial was had on defendant's plea of not guilty, thus showing his arraignment on the indictment under which the trial was had. Howard v. State, 165 Ala. 18, 27, 50 So. 954; Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 16 Sup.Ct. 952, 40 L.Ed. 1097; Code, 1907, § 7565; Bush v. State, 12 Ala.App. 260, 263, 67 So. 847.

No question was raised before the trial court as to the sufficiency of the venire for either the grand or the petit jury, nor as to the regularity of the organization of the regular juries for the week or term at which the case was tried, nor as to the correctness of the order of the court for a special venire, or of that fixing a day for the trial of the defendant. Upon appeal, such proceedings are presumed to have been regular and legal; and the statute declares that the transcript must not contain the same. Gen. Acts 1915, p. 708; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Burks v. State, 73 So. 824; Price v. State, 14 Ala.App. 89, 71 So. 972.

It has been recently declared that in trials for capital felonies, objections to the impaneling of the jury must be taken in the trial court, and exceptions duly reserved to the rulings thereon, in order that the rulings may be presented for review on appeal (Hendley v. State, 76 So. 904; Brassell v. State, 91 Ala. 45, 8 So. 679), because the drawing and organization of the jury is presumed to be correct where its recital is omitted from the record ( Tipton v. State, 140 Ala. 39, 37 So. 231; Hatch's Case, 144 Ala. 50, 40 So. 113;. Harrell v. State, 160 Ala. 91, 49 So. 805; Gen.Acts 1915, p. 708). In Patton v. State, ^[1] due objection was interposed and exception reserved to the ruling of the trial court on the motion to quash the venire, compelling the defendant to select a jury from a venire of less than 50 jurors. Similarly due exception was reserved in Hardaman v. State, 14 Ala.App. 27, 70 So. 961, for the failure to comply with the statutory requirements as to setting the cause for trial, entering an order requiring the sheriff to serve a copy of the indictment on the defendant, and showing service of the venire upon which he was tried on the defendant.

This record and the judgment entry therein are sufficient, under the statute, in respect to the order for a special venire, and the drawing, organization, and impaneling of the jury for the defendant's trial in the absence of due objection made and exception taken in the trial court. Paitry v....