Holt v. State
| Citation | 193 So. 101,238 Ala. 219 |
| Decision Date | 22 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 990. |
| Parties | HOLT v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Burdette alias J. B., Holt was convicted of possessing a reproduction or counterfeit of state revenue stamps or stamps used to identify articles sold by state liquor stores, and to review and revise a judgment and decision of the Court of Appeals 193 So. 98, reversing the judgment of conviction, the State applies for certiorari.
Writ granted.
See also, Holt v. State, Ala.Sup., 193 So. 89.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., Edwina Mitchell, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robt. T. Simpson, Jr., Solicitor, of Florence, for the State.
Murphy & Pounders, of Florence, opposed.
The petition for certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals in reversing and remanding the cause for that the indictment is defective, uncertain and ambiguous, and subject to the grounds of demurrer interposed, is before this court for decision.
The indictment is in the following words: "The Grand Jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment, Major Ingram and Burdette Holt, alias J. B. Holt, whose names are to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown, did buy or have in possession a reproduction or counterfeit of the Alabama Revenue Stamps provided for in the 'Alabama Beverage Control Act', or stamps used to identify articles sold and or distributed by State Liquor Stores of Alabama, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama."
The observations of the Court of Appeals relative to the provisions of the Constitution are:
The effect of our decisions is thus stated by the Court of Appeals:
The later decisions are Williams v. State, 24 Ala.App. 262, 134 So. 34; Jinright v. State, 24 Ala.App. 277, 134 So. 456. This rule has long prevailed. The courts of this jurisdiction have established such rule. Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 3 So. 711.
The indictment was returned by the Grand Jury on the 10th day of September, 1937, and the Alabama Beverage Control Act, a penal statute effective after sixty days from passage, there being no special provision contrary to the general provisions of the Code, § 5531, became effective on April 3, 1937, the bill having passed on February 2, 1937. General and Local Acts, Extra Session, 1936-37, pp. 40-85.
The Attorney General's brief concedes that failing to aver the offense was committed subsequent to April 3, 1937, the indictment was not a compliance with the foregoing rule of law, and was not explicit in its words, and so did not inform the defendant of his offense and of time, the essence of the crime charged.
Does the indictment as framed give due notice to the defendant that the alleged offense was committed at a time when the penal statute had application to the act or acts with which he was being charged, and which he was called upon to defend? Code 1923, §§ 4534, 4538.
In the several decisions cited by the Court of Appeals, the accused could not know from the indictment charging him with the offense; that is, he could not know whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor and whether it covered a period of time prior to the time when the law became effective, the violation of which defendant was so charged.
The State's counsel makes answer as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Deep v. State, 3 Div. 391
...of technical defects in either the indictment (R 450) or in the state's response to the Bill of Particulars. (R 468). Holt v. State, 238 Ala. 219, 193 So. 101, rev'g, 29 Ala.App. 100, 193 So. 98 (1939); Black v. State, We are also not convinced that appellant's strategy in defense would nec......
-
Hill v. State
...offense and the affidavit was void for uncertainty in failing to state the time of the commission of the alleged offense. In Holt v. State, 238 Ala. 219, 193 So. 101, the court cited numerous authorities to the effect that where an indictment covers a period when the offense charged was and......
-
Kelley v. State
...a new statute. Appellant in this case could not have been misled or in doubt as to the charge of which he was accused. Holt v. State, 238 Ala. 219, 193 So. 101 (1939). Since there can be no question that appellant was charged with embezzlement from the face of his indictment, appellant was ......
-
Dean v. State
...534, 79 So. 314; Howard v. State, 17 Ala.App. 464, 86 So. 172. The Attorney General directs our attention to the case of Burdette Holt v. State, Ala.Sup., 193 So. 101, granting a writ of certiorari to this Court in the case Holt v. State, Ala.App., 193 So. 98. The principle announced in the......