Johnson v. State
Decision Date | 12 May 1921 |
Docket Number | 7 Div. 112 |
Citation | 205 Ala. 665,89 So. 55 |
Parties | JOHNSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Talladega County; A.P. Agee, Judge.
Lewis Johnson was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant has been adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at death. His appeal is on the record only; no bill of exceptions appearing in the transcript. Under the act of September 22, 1915, amending Code, § 6256, the transcript "should not have contained the order of the court for the special venire, or fixing the date for the trial of the defendant, no question thereon being raised in the trial court." Paitry v State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36. The motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. Nevertheless, had the question been appropriately raised in the court below and presented here, it is quite evident that no reversible error could be pronounced as for the confusing allusion in a part of the order of June 30, 1920, to the "regular" jurors drawn for the week during which this defendant's trial was set. The record is self-correcting in that respect; and the defendant was accorded a special venire as required by law.
No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
The defendant, Lewis Johnson, was indicted, tried, and convicted of murder in the first degree. His punishment was fixed at death. There is no bill of exceptions in the transcript. No testimony is before this court; no brief by appellant or appellee on file. There is in the record an oral charge of the court and written charges given at the request of the defendant. These declare the law clearly, correctly, and forcibly on subjects of murder, manslaughter, and self-defense. The record contains motion for new trial and a few ex parte affidavits in regard to it. All of the matters therein should have been presented to the court during the trial or before the verdict, a ruling secured thereon, and, if adverse to the defendant, exception reserved and presented by bill of exceptions with the testimony, signed by the presiding judge.
To illustrate: The defendant moves for new trial, because one of the 12 jurors that tried the case was a member of the grand jury that returned the indictment. The affidavits prove it. He was not a competent juror. This man should not have been on the jury. The court no doubt would have excused him, if objection had been made, or the court had known it before he was sworn as a juror. It comes too late after the trial is over. Harris v. State, 177 Ala. 17, 59 So. 205; Daniels v. State, 88 Ala. 220, 7 So. 337.
There is nothing left except the record proper. We have read it. It shows the following orders in this case, made before the defendant appeared with an attorney, before an attorney was appointed to defend him, and before he was arraigned on the indictment, to-wit:
Section 32 of the act approved September 29, 1919 (Gen.Acts 1919, p. 1039), authorizes the judge of a court trying capital felonies to set two or more capital cases for trial on the same day when he deems proper, and to draw and have summoned one venire facias for the trial of all such cases. But this must be done with the defendant present in open court, with his attorney, and after arraignment. If the defendant is charged with a capital offense, has no attorney--as in this case--and is unable to employ one, the court must appoint one, and this should be done before any orders are made. It is the first step to be taken. The defendant and his attorney should be present in court when all orders therein are made, unless the law should expressly otherwise direct. Section 7839, Code 1907.
Immediately after the foregoing order, on the very next line of the minutes of the court, is the following:
There are two defendants--Allison Griffin and Lewis Johnson; the cases are separate. Names of both defendants are mentioned in the former order. There is no statement of this or any other case, with the offense charged, at the head of the minutes. This last order refers to "defendant." Which one is intended? From this it is uncertain whether the defendant Lewis Johnson or Allison Griffin appeared in court. It is uncertain which one the attorney was appointed to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Anderson v. State
...to the venire or to the order of the court providing the same, and that no objection was or is duly raised by defendant ( Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36) to the sufficiency of venire or the order therefor. The action of the court as to sa......
-
Scott v. State
...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; 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. St......
-
White v. State
... ... question thereupon was raised before the trial court, and, in ... the absence of any such question, such proceedings are upon ... appeal presumed to have been regular and legal. Charley ... v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Whittle v ... State, 205 Ala. 638, 89 So. 84; Johnson v ... State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55 ... It is ... recited that the defendant waived the drawing and subp naing ... of a special venire of jurymen for the trial of this cause ... The defendant had the right to waive a special venire under ... section 7264 of the Code of 1907, and ... ...
-
Catrett v. State, 1 Div. 85.
...terms of the statute. Section 3249, Code 1923. See, also, Supreme Court Rule 27; Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. Charlie v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Vann v. State, 207 Ala. 152, 92 So. 182. ......