Jiles v. State

Decision Date31 January 1929
Docket Number5 Div. 992.
PartiesJILES v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Lee County; James A. Hines, Judge.

Dock Jiles, alias Giles, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS J.

No questions as to the sufficiency of the venire or of the action of the court in impaneling the jury are reserved and presented. Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So 362; Carmichael v. State, 213 Ala. 264, 104 So. 638; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Jackson v. State, 213 Ala. 143, 104 So. 220; White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709.

The record proper has been examined (Howerton v. State, 191 Ala. 13, 67 So. 979), and there is no error "apparent on the record," and no "questions [are] reserved by bill of exceptions" (Code, § 3258; Hill v. State, 21 Ala. App. 310, 107 So. 789).

The judgment and sentence were rendered and pronounced by the court pursuant to the verdict of the jury finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree and "fix(ing) his penalty at death." Sullivan v State, 208 Ala. 473, 94 So. 473. The minute entry of the court shows a judgment against defendant of his guilt of murder in the first degree and his sentence by the court in accordance therewith, and the statutes having application. Carmichael v. State, supra.

The bill of exceptions must show all exceptions required to be reserved, not presumed. Solnick v. Ballard (Ala Sup.) 118 So. 381; Ill. Cent. R. Co. v. Posey, 212 Ala. 10, 101 So. 644; Chapman v. Hartford Fire Ins Co., 213 Ala. 255, 104 So. 517. If the exceptions sought to be taken to the oral charge are specific (McGehee v. State, 178 Ala. 4, 59 So. 573; Stroud v. State, 55 Ala. 77; Birmingham R. L. & P. Co. v. Friedman, 187 Ala. 562, 65 So. 939; Ex parte Cowart, 201 Ala. 55, 77 So. 349), the same must be shown by a bill of exceptions, and may not be reviewed in the absence of a bill of exceptions ( Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171).

It is true, that under the stated rule an exception is presumed to the action of the court in giving written charges to the opposite party and in denying one's request for written instruction, and is not required to be shown by a bill of exceptions. Sections 6430, 9509, Code. It is also true that, where the appeal is upon the record proper, there being no bill of exceptions, the appellate court cannot review the action of the trial court, in refusing the written charges requested by the defendant, though such charges are set out as a part of the record proper. Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Mack v. State, 201 Ala. 269, 77 So. 683; Sanford v. State, 19 Ala. App. 242, 96 So. 646; Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595; Thomas v. State, 20 Ala. App. 550, 103 So. 479; Motley v. State, 20 Ala. App. 689, 102 So. 924; Hallmark v. State, 20 Ala. App. 281, 101 So. 905; Howard v. State, 20 Ala. App. 399, 102 So. 491.

There being no reversible error disclosed by the record proper, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

The sentence was duly suspended pending defendant's appeal-though no exceptions are shown to have been reserved (Ex parte Mancil, 217 Ala. 486, 116 So. 908)-in pursuance to statutory provisions for an entry of record that defendant appeals from the judgment; and, the time fixed by the court for the execution of the sentence of the law upon defendant having expired pending his appeal, this court fixes the date indorsed on this record, as that on which the execution of the death sentence upon defendant, in accordance with the manner and in all respects with the statutes now...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Scott v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1934
    ... ... record, unless some question is raised thereon before the ... trial court. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So ... 709; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; ... Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 638, 89 So. 48; ... Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Jiles ... v. State, 218 Ala. 658, 120 So. 147, and authorities ... In the ... cases of Roan v. State, 225 Ala. 428, 143 So. 454, ... Spooney v. State, 217 Ala. 219, 115 So. 308, and ... Stinson v. State, 223 Ala. 327, 135 So. 571, ... questions as to the sufficiency and regularity of such ... ...
  • All States Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 1, 1939
    ...is so noted in the record proper. But that is not sufficient to review it. Solnick v. Ballard, 218 Ala. 206, 118 So. 381; Jiles v. State, 218 Ala. 658, 120 So. 147; National Surety Co. v. Boone, 227 Ala. 599, 151 447. But the given and refused charges need not appear in the bill of exceptio......
  • Hewett v. State, 7 Div. 348
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1936
    ...matters not here subject to review. Preston v. State (Ala.Sup.) 164 So. 571; Levert v. State, 220 Ala. 425, 125 So. 664; Jiles v. State, 218 Ala. 658, 120 So. 147. Let judgment stand affirmed. Affirmed. BOULDIN, FOSTER, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. ...
  • Board of Education of Clarke County v. Blan
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1929
    ...120 So. 145 218 Ala. 665 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CLARKE COUNTY v. BLAN, STATE AUDITOR. 3 Div. 866.Supreme Court of AlabamaJanuary 31, 1929 ... Appeal ... from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Walter B. Jones, ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT