Hughes v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 697 |
| Citation | 105 So. 664,213 Ala. 555 |
| Parties | HUGHES v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1925
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County; O. Kyle, Judge.
Herman Hughes was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
G.O Chenault, of Albany, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The fact that the indictment was not signed by the solicitor before returned by the grand jury and filed in court did not invalidate the same. Teague v. State, 144 Ala. 42 40 So. 312. Therefore, all motions or objections based upon this point were properly overruled. It seems that after the indictment was filed and without the consent of the court the solicitor signed his name to same. It is true, indictments cannot be amended, except in open court and with the consent of the defendant, but this was in no sense an amendment. It was but the gratuitous act of the solicitor which neither added to nor detracted from the validity of the indictment as returned by the grand jury.
It is also urged that the case should be reversed, because a true copy of the indictment was not served upon the defendant, that the copy served contained the signature of the solicitor when the same was not a part of the indictment. As above noted, this did not affect the validity of the indictment one way or another and the defendant could not have thereby been injured. Rule 45.
It was within the discretion of the court as to not permitting the jury to take out the letter from the deceased to the defendant. 6 Mayfield's Digest, p. 516, and cases there cited. We cannot say that this discretion was abused because the court permitted the jury to take out the pistol. True, the court could have well let the defendant's documentary evidence be taken out after letting the jury have the pistol and would doubtless have done so had defendant made the request after the trial court decided to let the jury have the pistol and which was after the jury retired. The defendant did request that the letter be taken out, but this was before the pistol was sent out, and the defendant should have later requested that the letter be sent out also, instead of objecting to the action of the court in permitting the pistol to go to the jury.
The trial court, at the request of the defendant, gave charges on page 84 of the record which relate to a "probability of innocence" and after giving said charges attempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sisson v. State
...was contained in the original complaint in municipal court. This rule does not apply where an indictment is concerned. Hughes v. State, 213 Ala. 555, 105 So. 664 (1925); Tatum Id. at 167. See also Simpson v. State, 111 Ala. 6, 20 So. 572 (1896) (complaint may be amended provided the amendme......
-
Tooson v. State, 6 Div. 882
...bad, it would tend to mislead the jury to disregard the interest of the defendant in weighing and considering the evidence. Hughes v. State, 213 Ala. 555, 105 So. 664. The eighth charge was refused without error. It singles out the defendant's testimony, gives undue prominence to it, and is......
-
Ray v. State
... ... 55, 14 So. 627; ... Dentler v. State, 112 Ala. 71, 20 So. 592; ... McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387; ... Watts v. State, 204 Ala. 372, 86 So. 70 (headnote ... 1); Woodson v. State, 170 Ala. 87, 54 So. 191; ... Ratliff v. State, 212 Ala. 410, 102 So. 621 ... (headnote 8); Hughes v. State, 213 Ala. 555, 105 So ... 664; Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 So. 34 ... (headnote 11); Hendrix v. State, 11 Ala. App. 207, ... 65 So. 682; Jones v. State, 13 Ala. App. 10, 68 So ... 690 (headnote 10); Thomas v. State, 15 Ala. App ... 146, 72 So. 686; Pounds v. State, 15 Ala ... ...
-
Robinson v. City of Montgomery, 3 Div. 276
...was contained in the original complaint in municipal court. This rule does not apply where an indictment is concerned. Hughes v. State, 213 Ala. 555, 105 So. 664 (1925); We conclude that Issue II of appellant is not well taken. III. As to this issue, it is contended in brief of counsel for ......