Kyser v. State
| Decision Date | 27 March 1928 |
| Docket Number | 3 Div. 582 |
| Citation | 117 So. 157,22 Ala.App. 431 |
| Parties | KYSER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied April 11, 1928
Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Leon McCord, Judge.
Glenn Kyser was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appeals. Appeal dismissed.
Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court in Kyser v. State, 117 So 159.
E.T Graham, of Montgomery, for appellant.
Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The fundamental law of this state is that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. Const.1901, § 6. As stated in Smith v State, 21 Ala.App. 70, 105 So. 397.
"It is the manifest purpose of this provision to accord to the citizen security against the arbitrary action of those in authority, and to place him under the protection of the 'law of the land,' which is synonymous with the expression 'due process of law.' "
There is but a single question involved in this case upon appeal. Stated concretely, did the circuit court of Montgomery county, under the process shown by the record, have jurisdiction to try this case? This point is clearly and properly raised, and, as stated, the decision thereof will be conclusive of this appeal.
It appears from the record that this appellant was arrested under a warrant issued by Walter B. Jones, judge of the Fifteenth judicial circuit, said warrant being made returnable before the judge of the Fifteenth judicial circuit. It was predicated upon an affidavit of S.E. Tranum, subscribed and sworn to before the said Walter B. Jones, judge of the Fifteenth judicial circuit, and upon this affidavit appellant was tried and convicted for the offense therein charged, that of violating the Prohibition Law of the state, by having in his possession prohibited liquors.
In the absence of express statutory authority, the circuit court does not acquire jurisdiction of the subject-matter in the manner here shown. That court has only jurisdiction to try criminal cases after indictment found, or upon appeal from a lower court after conviction.
Jurisdiction of the offense and of the person must concur to authorize a court of competent jurisdiction to proceed to final judgment in a criminal prosecution. This to the end, a formal accusation sufficient to apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation is a prerequisite to jurisdiction of the offense. Irregularities in obtaining jurisdiction of the person may be waived, but a formal accusation by indictment, or authorized information, or complaint supported by oath, is essential to complete jurisdiction, and cannot be waived.
We know of no constitutional or other inhibition against the Legislature prescribing the court to which warrants issued by magistrates in misdemeanor cases shall be made returnable and in which courts such cases may be tried, provided, of course, if the right of trial by jury be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dothan v. Holloway
...the trial court from obtaining jurisdiction to try the case. See, e.g., Slater v. State, 230 Ala. 320, 162 So. 130 (1935); Kyser v. State, 22 Ala.App. 431, 117 So. 157, cert. denied, 217 Ala. 561, 117 So. 159 (1928). Although the decisions rendered in those cases are not readily distinguish......
-
Smith v. State
...the trial court from obtaining jurisdiction to try the case. See, e.g., Slater v. State, 230 Ala. 320, 162 So. 130 (1935); Kyser v. State, 22 Ala.App. 431, 117 So. 157, cert. denied, 217 Ala. 561, 117 So. 159 (1928). Although the decisions rendered in those cases are not readily distinguish......
-
Kennedy v. State
...seems implicitly disapproved by the Collins opinion. Cases such as Streanger v. State, 21 Ala.App. 600, 110 So. 595, and Kyser v. State, 22 Ala.App. 431, 117 So. 157, are to be strictly confined in view of the holding in the Collins The provision under § 25, supra, for transfer to the circu......
-
Young v. City of Hokes Bluff
...information, or complaint supported by oath, is essential to complete jurisdiction and cannot be waived.' Kyser v. State, 22 Ala.App. 431, 432, 117 So. 157, 158 (1928). See also Temporary Rule 15.1, A.R.Crim.P."Brown v. State, 565 So.2d at 589. See also State v. Thomas, 550 So.2d 1067, 1070......