Keenum v. State, 8 Div. 579.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1933 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 579. |
| Citation | 25 Ala.App. 359,146 So. 623 |
| Parties | KEENUM v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Lawrence County Court; W. R. Jackson, Judge.
Fred Keenum was convicted of operating an automobile without license, and he appeals.
Reversed and rendered.
J. N Powell, of Hartselle, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State.
Counsel for appellant in the court below raised the question of the jurisdiction of that court to try and determine this case insisting that the defendant was under the age of sixteen years at the time of the alleged commission of the offense charged in the complaint. In this connection it was insisted that the jurisdiction of the person rested only in the juvenile court by virtue of the statute which provides "Whenever a child under sixteen years of age is brought before a magistrate of any court in the county other than the juvenile court, * * * such magistrate or court shall forthwith, by proper order, transfer the case to the juvenile court of the county." Acts 1923, p. 296, § 11. The written "motion" to this effect operated as a plea to the jurisdiction of the court as it set out the grounds of the motion as above stated. It appears from the record that the "motion" (or plea) was overruled by the court and the defendant excepted. This action of the court was erroneous and without authority of law, for under the terms of the statute it was the duty of the court to ascertain and determine the age of the accused, and, if such investigation disclosed that the child, when brought before the court, was under sixteen years of age, the order aforesaid should at once be issued and the child forthwith transferred to the juvenile court. In this case, however, this error of the court cannot avail the appellant, for it appears upon the trial the defendant was permitted to undertake to prove the plea, and the evidence conclusively showed that at the time of this trial, to wit, on April 4, 1932, the defendant was more than sixteen years of age, his date of birth having been proven as January 12, 1916. Having attained the age of sixteen before being brought into court for trial, the lower court had jurisdiction of the person under the decision of this court in the case of Lane v. State, 20 Ala App. 192, 101 So. 521, certiorari denied in Ex parte Lane 211 Ala. 615, 101 So. 522. In said case the court held that, under the act, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, 6 Div. 449
...of the crime. Lane v. State, 20 Ala.App. 192, 101 So. 521, certiorari denied, Ex parte Lane, 211 Ala. 615, 101 So. 522; Keenum v. State, 25 Ala.App. 359, 146 So. 623; Brown v. State, 247 Ala. 288, 24 So.2d 223. On the hearing of the motion it does not appear that any proof was offered as to......
-
Mayton v. State, 4 Div. 295
...20 Ala.App. 192, 101 So. 521; Davis v. State, 259 Ala. 212, 66 So.2d 714; Brown v. State, 247 Ala. 288, 24 So.2d 223; Keenum v. State, 25 Ala.App. 359, 146 So. 623. The judgment of the court below is due to be affirmed, and it is so Affirmed. All the Judges concur. ...
-
Simmons v. State, 6 Div. 336
...was under eighteen at the time of the alleged act, the child should have been transferred to the juvenile court. Cf. Keenum v. State, 25 Ala.App. 359, 146 So. 623 (1933); Hart v. State, 22 Ala.App. 135, 113 So. 471 (1927). We find in the record no factual determination of Simmons's Accordin......