Jackson v. State

• Citation: 136 Ala. 96,33 So. 888
• Parties: JACKSON v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 28 February 1903
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

33 So. 888

136 Ala. 96

JACKSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 28, 1903

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.

Morris Jackson was convicted of assault with intent to murder, and appeals. Reversed.

The appellant in this case, Morris Jackson, was indicted, tried and convicted for an assault upon Mose Bradford with the intent to murder him, and was sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. The facts relating to the special plea interposed by the defendant and the demurrers thereto are sufficiently shown in the opinion. There was evidence introduced on the part of the state tending to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that he shot at said Mose Bradford in self-defense. The defendant requested the court to give to the jury the following written charges and separately excepted to the court's refusal to give each of them as asked: "(1) If the jury believe the evidence, they must acquit the defendant. (2) If the jury believe the evidence, they must find the defendant not guilty. (3) If you believe that Mose Bradford fired the first shot, and hit the defendant, and continued to fire at defendant as he was backing out of the house, and the defendant returned the fire while Mose Bradford was firing on him, then the defendant acted in self-defense, and you must acquit him. (4) If you believe that the defendant was the aggressor, and spoke the first words, but afterwards backed out on the street, and did not fire or attempt to fire until he was shot by the said Mose Bradford, and at the time Bradford was firing on the said defendant, then you must acquit the defendant. (5) If the jury believe that Morris Jackson was in his own apartment in the house or shop on Court street, and that Mose Bradford fired on Morris first and that Mose did [not?] fire until after he had or was backing out of the house, and while Mose Bradford was firing on him, then you must acquit the defendant."

Bibb Graves, for appellant.

Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHARPE J.

In this case the defendant, being indicted for an assault with intent to murder, filed a plea setting up, in substance, that he had been convicted and sentenced in the recorder's court under the laws of the state, as for an affray, constituted by the same act for which he is now prosecuted. The plea was demurred to on five grounds, which are, in substance: First, that it failed to set out the warrant or affidavit on which the defendant was convicted; second, that it failed to show the offense of which he was convicted; third, that it shows he is now charged with a felony; fourth, that the act purporting to give the recorder's court jurisdiction of misdemeanors under state laws is unconstitutional; fifth, that the recorder was without jurisdiction of offenses against the laws of the state, because such jurisdiction is not expressed in or suggested by the title to the act " 'To establish a new charter for the city of Montgomery' (Acts 1892-93, p. 368), or the act amendatory thereof (Acts 1894-95, p. 628), or the act of 1900-01 (page 964) entitled 'An act to further define the powers and duties of the recorder of the city of Montgomery and alderman of the city of Montgomery acting as recorder.' " The demurrer was sustained, and, according to recitals of the record, that action was based on the fourth and fifth grounds of demurrer. Each of the acts referred to contains the following, among other, provisions: "That the recorder or alderman of the city of Montgomery acting as recorder shall have original and concurrent jurisdiction of all misdemeanors committed within the said city, or within the police jurisdiction thereof, against the laws of the state, and whenever any offense against the by-laws or ordinances of the city is a misdemeanor against the laws of the state. No finding or judgment of acquittal or conviction rendered by said recorder shall be a bar to a prosecution by the state in any case where the facts or offense charged constitute the offense a felony under the laws of the state of Alabama. In all cases where a person is convicted or acquitted before the recorder, or acting recorder, of any offense which is a misdemeanor under the laws of the state, such conviction or acquittal shall be a bar to a prosecution of such person for such offense before any state court." Whether the first two acts are operative to confer the jurisdiction in question is immaterial. Of them it need...