King v. State

• Decision Date: 11 June 1903
• Citation: 137 Ala. 47,34 So. 683
• Parties: KING v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

34 So. 683

137 Ala. 47

KING v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 11, 1903

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; Dan'l A. Greene Judge.

Sidney King was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

The indictment was as follows: "The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment Sidney King unlawfully and with malice aforethought killed Ocey Barron, alias Ocey Byron, by hitting him or by striking him with a miner's pick, or by stabbing or cutting him with a knife, or with some sharp instrument to the grand jury unknown, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." To this indictment the defendant demurred upon several grounds, which may be summarized as follows: (1) That the averments of said indictment are repugnant, in this: that it avers that said deceased was killed by being hit or struck with a miner's pick, or by being stabbed or cut with a knife, and also avers that said deceased was killed with some sharp instrument to the grand jury unknown. (2) That the averments of said indictment are repugnant, in this: that it avers that the means or instrument with which the deceased was killed was known to the grand jury, to wit, a miner's pick or a knife, and also avers that the deceased was killed with some sharp instrument to the grand jury unknown. (3) That said indictment is vague, uncertain, and indefinite, in this: that it avers that said deceased was killed by being hit or struck with a miner's pick, or by being stabbed or cut with a knife, and also avers that said deceased was killed with some sharp instrument to the grand jury unknown. (4) That said indictment is vague, uncertain, and indefinite in this: that it avers that the means or instrument with which deceased was killed was known to the grand jury, and also avers that said means or instrument was unknown to the grand jury. (5) That said indictment is bad for duplicity, in this: that it avers that the means or instrument with which deceased was killed was known to the grand jury, and also avers that said means or instrument was unknown to the grand jury. This demurrer was overruled, and to this ruling the defendant duly excepted.

Russell & Lewis, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHARPE J.

The statutes relating to the form and contents of indictments provide that "when an offense may be committed by different means, or with different intents, such means or intents may be alleged...