Lane v. State
| Decision Date | 24 June 1924 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 937. |
| Parties | LANE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 22, 1924.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Alex Lane was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ex parte Lane, 101 So. 522.
J. N Ham, of Elba, Fleming & Yarbrough, of Enterprise, and Farmer Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted for assault with the intent to murder and was convicted of assault and battery.
There was a plea to the jurisdiction of the court on the ground "tat at the time the offense was committed the defendant was under 16 years." The record recites that the defendant for plea said he was not guilty and filed a suggestion and plea of 16 years of age and motion to transfer the case to the juvenile court; that the court thereupon ascertained that the defendant was 17 years of age and overruled the suggestion, and the court thereupon sustained the state's demurrer to the defendant's petition "on the ground that it failed to show the defendant is now under the age of 16 years." The offense was committed on April 10, 1922, the indictment was returned on September 26, 1922, the defendant was 17 years of age on October 2, 1923, and the case was tried on October 9, 1923.
The applicable portion of the act (Acts 1915, p. 584, § 9) as amended by the act of 1923 (Acts 1923, p. 309, § 11) reads as follows:
"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"
The act of 1923 (Acts 1923, p. 296) retains substantially the language of the quoted portion of the act of 1915, supra. Section 11 of said act of 1923 provides further:
"That any criminal court or any court exercising criminal jurisdiction in any county coming under the provisions of this act before which any child between the ages of sixteen and eighteen years is brought, charged with the commission of a crime, shall have authority, if such court shall deem it to be in the interest of justice and of the public welfare, to in like manner transfer such child by proper order to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court of said county to be dealt with as a delinquent child under the terms of this act."
It is clear that, when the child is between 16 and 18 years of age, the court before whom he is brought charged with a criminal offense has the authority when it deems it to be in the interest of justice and the public welfare to transfer such child to the juvenile court; but it is also clear that this question is addressed to the sound judgment of the trial court, and that, in the absence of such a finding by the court, the child between 16 and 18 years of age may be put to trial for the crime with which he is charged.
In the instant case the defendant was under 16 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense, and was over 17 years of age when he was brought before the court for trial. The defendant was never placed under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The indictment was returned on September 26, 1922, the defendant then being under 16 years of age, and the defendant was arrested on October 5, 1922, just 3 days after he had attained the age of 16 years. He was brought before the court on October 9, 1923, 7 days after he had become 17 years of age. There is no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Cemetery Co. v. Harrison
... ... overruled by the trial court. The appellant now insists that ... these counts merely state conclusions, and not facts, and do ... not show with that degree of certainty requisite to good ... pleading, when plaintiff's cause of action ... ...
-
Davis v. State, 6 Div. 449
...years old at the time of his trial. The important date on such a claim is the time of the trial, not that 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, 24......
-
Davis v. State
...age, and, this being true, the circuit court had jurisdiction of the person. It has been expressly so held in the case of Lane v. State, 20 Ala.App. 192, 101 So. 521. also, Macon v. Holloway, 19 Ala.App. 234, 96 So. 933. The court properly allowed the defendant to show that there had been f......
-
Mayton v. State, 4 Div. 295
...not at the time of the commission of crime, determines the circuit court's jurisdiction to hear and determine the casue. Lane v. State, 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......