Jiles v. State, 5 Div. 992.
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | THOMAS, J. |
| Citation | 218 Ala. 658,120 So. 147 |
| Parties | JILES v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 992. |
| Decision Date | 31 January 1929 |
120 So. 147
218 Ala. 658
JILES
v.
STATE.
5 Div. 992.
Supreme Court of Alabama
January 31, 1929
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...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 St......
-
All States Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 4 Div. 80.
...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 So. 447. But the given and refused charges need not appear in the bill of exce......
-
Hewett v. State, 7 Div. 348
...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 the judgment stand affirmed. Affirmed. BOULDIN, FOSTER, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. ...
-
Board of Education of Clarke County v. Blan, 3 Div. 866.
...of the corpus of the fund was a controlling purpose, if not the sole purpose, of the act. For this cause we are implied to hold the [120 So. 147.] entire act void, as in violation of section 45 of the Constitution. We need not consider other questions raised. Affirmed. All the Justices conc......
-
Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
...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 St......
-
All States Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 4 Div. 80.
...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 So. 447. But the given and refused charges need not appear in the bill of exce......
-
Hewett v. State, 7 Div. 348
...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 the judgment stand affirmed. Affirmed. BOULDIN, FOSTER, and KNIGHT, JJ., concur. ...
-
Board of Education of Clarke County v. Blan, 3 Div. 866.
...of the corpus of the fund was a controlling purpose, if not the sole purpose, of the act. For this cause we are implied to hold the [120 So. 147.] entire act void, as in violation of section 45 of the Constitution. We need not consider other questions raised. Affirmed. All the Justices conc......