Leonard v. State
| Decision Date | 27 July 1892 |
| Citation | 96 Ala. 108,11 So. 307 |
| Parties | LEONARD v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Gadsden; JOHN H. DISQUE, Judge.
Aaron Leonard was tried and convicted of arson in the third degree on an indictment in the following language: "The grand jury of said county charge that before the finding of this indictment Aaron Leonard, under such circumstances as did not constitute arson in the first or second degree, did willfully set fire to or burn a building of York Rogers, to wit, a corncrib or cornpen containing corn, against the peace," etc. From the order overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment he appeals. Affirmed.
Geo. D. Motley, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant in this case was indicted, tried, and convicted of arson in the third degree. The only questions presented on this appeal arise on the order of the court overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment. The grounds of this motion were that the indictment "failed to aver facts necessary to charge arson in the third degree," and that the verdict of the jury was not authorized by law. The indictment, as is seen from the reporter's statement of facts, follows substantially the form given in the Code (section 4899, form 8;) the only difference being that the indictment under which defendant was tried described the offense charged more particularly than the Code form. It has been repeatedly decided by this court that an indictment is sufficient if it is a substantial copy of the form prescribed by the Code. The verdict of the jury was in the following language: "We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment, and assess the fine at ($150.00) one hundred and fifty dollars." The point contended for by counsel in argument is that the jury could not impose a fine without first imposing a sentence of imprisonment or to hard labor. This contention, although attempted to be rested on the phraseology of the statute, is without foundation. The statute provides that the defendant "must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the county jail, or sentenced to hard labor for the county, *** and may also be fined," etc. Code, § 3784. Under the statutes of this state, the only punishment the jury could impose on a conviction for arson in the third degree was the imposition of a fine not exceeding $2,000. Code, § 4499; Melton v. State, 45 Ala. 56. It was within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Powell v. State
... ... correctness has not since been questioned, nor its soundness ... doubted. There is no merit in this contention of the ... appellants. Schwartz v. State, supra; Smith v ... State, 63 Ala. 55; Whitehead v. State, 16 Ala ... App. 427, 78 So. 467; Leonard v. State, 96 Ala. 108, ... 11 So. 307; Walker v. State, 96 Ala. 53, 11 So. 401; ... Lang v. State, 97 Ala. 41, 12 So. 183; Reeves v ... State, 95 Ala. 31, 11 So. 158; Huffman v ... State, 89 Ala. 33, 8 So. 28; Bailey v. State, ... 99 Ala. 143, 13 So. 566; Coleman v. State, 150 ... ...
-
Doss v. State
...a conviction. Schwartz v. State, 37 Ala. 460; Smith v. State, 63 Ala. 55; Whitehead v. State, 16 Ala. App. 427, 78 So. 467; Leonard v. State, 96 Ala. 108, 11 So. 307; Walker v. State, 96 Ala. 53, 11 So. 401; Lang State, 97 Ala. 41, 12 So. 183; Reeves v. State, 95 Ala. 31, 11 So. 158; Huffma......
-
Brazell v. State, 1 Div. 400
...would have required a reversal before the institution of the harmless error rule now found in A.R.A.P., Rule 45. See Leonard v. State, 96 Ala. 108, 11 So. 307 (1892); Leoni v. State, 44 Ala. 110 Even where the jury actually fixes punishment where that duty rests with the judge, that part of......
-
Lashley v. State
... ... 'omits to aver' in terms some of the material facts ... necessary to be proved to secure a conviction. Schwartz ... v. State, 37 Ala. 460; Smith v. State, 63 ... Ala. 55; Whitehead v. State, 16 Ala.App. 427, 78 ... So. 467; Leonard v. State, 96 Ala. 108, 11 So ... 307; Walker v. State, 96 Ala. 53, 11 So. 401; ... Lang v. State, 97 Ala. 41, 12 So. 183; Reeves ... v. State, 95 Ala. 31, 11 So. 158; Huffman v ... State, 89 Ala. 33, 8 So. 28; Bailey v. State, ... 99 Ala. [ 143] 145, 13 So. 566; Coleman v. State, ... 150 ... ...