Jarvis v. State
Citation | 126 So. 127,220 Ala. 501 |
Decision Date | 25 January 1930 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 527. |
Parties | JARVIS v. STATE. |
Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Mobile County; Claud A. Grayson, Judge.
Jack Jarvis was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Edward J. Grove, Francis J. Inge, and Arthur J. Kearley, all of Mobile, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Wm. P. Cobb, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment for homicide and conviction was for murder in the first degree.
The homicide was committed on the morning of July 19, 1928 defendant was arrested on the same day; the indictment was returned on October 11, 1928, arraignment and plea of not guilty on October 16th; and it appearing to the court that appellant was unable to employ an attorney, counsel was appointed for defendant on the following day. Cause was set and called for trial on October 23d, at which time it was made known to the court that one of defendant's counsel was ill, and the court appointed additional counsel; the latter stated he could not properly represent defendant without additional time, and moved for a continuance, and the court set the case over for the next day. At said time the counsel who was ill reported and stated he had only a week to prepare his defense; that he learned the history of defendant's family in Mississippi and Florida; that his mother and others in the line were insane, and that his mother's sister was insane, and that her brother had two sons insane, and her grandfather was insane; that these facts should be duly presented to the jury, and he (counsel) had not had time to do this. The court declined the motion for continuance. We find no obvious or gross abuse of discretion by the trial court in setting over the cause for trial and refusal to grant the motion of defendant's counsel for further time or for a continuance. Knowles v. Blue, 209 Ala. 27, 95 So. 481; Lutz v. Van Heynigen Brok Co., 202 Ala. 234, 80 So. 72; Berthold, etc., & Co v. Phalin Lumber Co., 196 Ala. 362, 71 So. 989; White v. State, 86 Ala. 69, 5 So. 674; Kelly v. State,
160 Ala. 48, 49, 49 So. 535; Spann v. Torbert, 130 Ala. 541, 30 So. 389.
The controlling decisions have been stated in McLaughlin v. Beyers, 175 Ala. 544, 57 So. 716, as follows:
And the opportunity for process or a showing was thus adverted to in Allen v. Bannister, 210 Ala. 264, 97 So. 820, as follows:
In the case of Rodgers v. State, 144 Ala. 32, 34, 40 So. 572, 573, it is declared:
In the instant case the fact was that Mrs. Burel was duly served with process before the request was made for attachment and motion for continuance in the absence of a showing. And in Sanders v. State, 181 Ala. 35, 50, 61 So. 336, 341, are the pertinent observations that in order to bring the matter properly before this court, the defendant is required to make proper motions and exceptions in the court below, "so that the record may show whether or not he has been deprived of a substantial right," Rodgers v. State, 144 Ala. 34, 40 So. 572, and to show whether the witness "can be reached and his attendance secured by compulsory process, and whether or not the issuance of the process would be futile," and "whether or not such evidence would be relevant or material, and, therefore, whether or not the process would be of any service to the accused."
In Amendment 6 to the Constitution of the United States are provisions, as in our section 6 of the Constitution of Alabama, to the effect that in criminal prosecutions the accused "be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor," etc. The right of attachment is not absolute and unqualified under all circumstances, but an application for continuance for execution of attachment is addressed largely to or rested in the sound discretion of the court, dependent upon the facts. 16 C.J. pp. 457, 458, §§ 460, 829, 830, 850, 854, and 855; Richardson v. State, 191 Ala. 21, 24, 68 So. 57; Sanders v. State, 181 Ala. 35, 49, 51, 61 So. 336; Gilbert v. State, 2 Ala. App. 94, 57 So. 127. That is to say, in the exercise of the right of attachment and extraordinary compulsory process to compel personal attendance, after ordinary compulsory process of subp na is accorded, a large discretionary power is given the court, as to putting the adverse party on a showing for such absent witness, or in granting an application for a continuance for the issue and execution of an attachment. The court is not bound to order attachment ex mero motu, on failure of a witness to appear in answer to summons; it is only after the witness is "in contempt," and the "propriety and necessity of the process is shown."
The United States Constitution Ann. (Corpus Juris System) 1924, p. 189; 16 C.J. p. 457 et seq., § 829 et seq.; Gilbert v. State, 2 Ala. App. 94, 57 So. 127, and authorities, and section 6, Constitution of Alabama, p. 25, extend to "ordinary process" or subp na for witnesses and proper showing therefor if absent and not in contempt. Childress v. State, 86 Ala. 77, 5 So. 775; Walker v. State, 117 Ala. 85, 23 So. 670; Winter v. State 123 Ala. 1, 10, 26 So. 949; Martin v. State, 125 Ala. 64, 28 So. 92.
The facts of the case of Morris v. State, 193 Ala. 1, 68 So. 1003, are not as those before us. Here, the defendant had the ordinary process of the court, and his appeal for the extraordinary process by attachment was denied when he had the benefit of the showing admitted by the solicitor, subject to legal exceptions, and the witness was not in contempt of court.
And in Sanderson v. State, 168 Ala. 109, 113, 53 So. 109, 110, the court observed:
Caldwell v. State, 203 Ala. 412, 416, 84 So. 272; Cagle v. State, 211 Ala. 346, 100 So. 318.
The defendant having reduced to writing what he expected to prove by his several absent witnesses (including Mrs. J. S. Burel) and the solicitor for the state having "then stated to the court that he would admit them, subject to legal exceptions," moved the court for a continuance for "such reasonable time as to properly prepare the case for the defendant and to make further investigation as to the insanity of the defendant....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burns v. State
... ... There was no proof made ... or evidence offered and exhibited in the bill of exceptions ... to show that the trial court palpably or grossly abused its ... discretion in the premises. Knowles v. Blue, 209 ... Ala. 27, 95 So. 481; Sanderson v. State, 168 Ala ... 109, 53 So. 109; Jarvis v. State, 220 Ala. 501, 126 ... So. 127, and authorities; Richardson v. State, 191 ... Ala. 21, 68 So. 57; Webb v. State, 135 Ala. 36, 33 ... So. 487; Bryant v. State, 185 Ala. 8, 64 So. 333; ... Mosley v. State, 22 Ala. App. 95, 112 So. 811; ... Creel v. State, 23 Ala. App. 241, 124 So. 507; ... ...
-
Carroll v. State
...show insanity by family history has the duty of showing that the evidence was within the exception to the hearsay rule. Jarvis v. State, 220 Ala. 501, 126 So. 127 (1930). A non expert witness cannot testify to the mental condition of a person until it has been shown that he has an intimate ......
-
Beauregard v. State
...was within its discretion in denying the motions for a continuance. Peterson v. State, 231 Ala. 625, 166 So. 20 (1936); Jarvis v. State, 220 Ala. 501, 126 So. 127 (1930); Campbell v. State, 257 Ala. 322, 58 So.2d 623 (1952); Veith v. State, 48 Ala.App. 688, 267 So.2d 480 (1972); Payne v. St......
-
Norris v. State
... ... witnesses. This was a matter addressing itself to the wise ... discretion of the trial judge, and his action thereon will ... not be here reviewed in the absence of any abuse thereof ... Bell v. State, 227 Ala. 254, 149 So. 687; Jarvis ... v. State, 220 Ala. 501, 126 So. 127 ... As to ... the absent witnesses who had been subp naed, the record ... discloses they were not present when the case was called, and ... the court offered to have attachments issued, if so desired; ... but attachments were not requested, ... ...