Kreutner v. State, 3 Div. 369

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Writing for the Court: SAYRE, J.
• Citation: 202 Ala. 287,80 So. 125
• Parties: KREUTNER v. STATE.
• Docket Number: 3 Div. 369
• Decision Date: 29 June 1918

80 So. 125

202 Ala. 287

KREUTNER
v.
STATE.

3 Div. 369

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 29, 1918

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1918

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Henry Kreutner was convicted of crime, and, the conviction being affirmed by the Court of Appeals, defendant brings certiorari. Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed, and cause remanded.

See, also, 80 So. 127.

McClellan, Gardner, and Thomas, JJ., dissenting.

Goodwyn & McIntyre, of Montgomery, for appellant.

F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., and David W.W. Fuller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAYRE, J.

The act "to regulate and prescribe the method of securing jury trials in civil causes at law and in misdemeanors, and to prescribe how such causes shall be tried without the intervention of a jury and reviewed" (Acts 1915, p. 939), was one of a number of acts passed at the same session of the Legislature through which ran a general purpose to provide a remedy for a situation described by the judiciary recess committee in part as follows:

"Our procedure is almost as varied as the number of courts and burdened by many technicalities which hamper rather than promote justice." House Journal, vol. 1, p 1571

Section 1 of the act provided:

"That in all civil causes at law in the circuit court the issue and question of fact shall be tried by the judge of the court without the intervention of a jury unless a jury trial be demanded," etc

Section 2 of the act provided:

"That in all misdemeanor causes in the circuit court, the issue and question of fact shall be tried by the judge of the court without the intervention of a jury except in causes where a trial by jury is demanded," etc.

True, that about eight months previously, within five days of the beginning of its session, while there were in various parts of the state inferior courts, each with its own peculiar jurisdiction and procedure, and before the reform of our judicial system had gathered headway, the same Legislature had done its part in the passage of the act approved January 23d, 1915 (Acts, p. 8 et seq.), commonly known as the act for the enforcement of the prohibition laws of the state, section 32 of which provided that--

"If the prosecution is begun in a court in which jury trials are provided for, the defendant may at the time he gives bond or within five days thereafter file in the cause a demand for trial by jury, or if he does not give bond, he may within five days after his arrest file in the court a demand for a jury trial, in which event such jury trial shall be allowed."

There is also the rule of...