Lockhart v. State
| Decision Date | 11 January 1949 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 777. |
| Citation | 34 Ala.App. 297,39 So.2d 40 |
| Parties | LOCKHART et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1949.
R G. Redden and Young & Young, all of Vernon, for appellants.
A A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Bernard F. Sykes, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
These two appellants, R. J. Lockhart and Freasure Lockhart originally were separately charged, but jointly tried in the County Court of Lamar County with five offenses, one of which was unlawfully shooting into a building, an offense denounced by Section 171 of Title 14, Code of Alabama 1940.
By proper judgment entry the appellants were found guilty by the County Court of the offense of shooting into a building as charged, and the court imposed a fine of $500.00 and a sentence to hard labor for 180 days on each of the accused.
Each of the accused thereafter perfected an appeal to the Circuit Court. It is noted that the appeal bonds recite that the respective defendant was convicted of the offense of 'shooting a shotgun into or against a building.'
In the Circuit Court a complaint was filed by the Solicitor against each of the defendants. These complaints respectively charge that each defendant 'did unlawfully shoot a shotgun or other firearm at, into, in, through or against a building' belonging to Sulligent Post #32 of the American Legion, which building is used for the assembly of people for business or pleasure, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.
Each defendant thereafter filed a motion to quash the judgment of the County Court on the grounds that the minute entry, or judgment written by the Clerk of the County Court did not correspond to the bench notes made by the County Judge in the cases. These motions were overruled.
Each defendant then filed pleas of former acquittal, which were stricken on motion of the State.
Thereupon they each filed a plea of former jeopardy. After a hearing the court ruled against the defendants on their pleas of former jeopardy.
Each of these pleas of former jeopardy alleged in substance that each defendant had been charged with five offenses in the County Court and that the judgment of guilty was a general one; that for aught appearing the defendants were convicted in the County Court for one of the offenses charged other than the offense of 'shooting into a building,' and that this therefore operated as an acquittal of the charge of 'shooting into a building.'
The evidence presented by the State was directed toward showing that these two appellants were in the building or hut of the American Legion Post #32 in Sulligent. They had been drinking and became embroiled in a fight with others present. They were thereupon ejected from the building. They then went to their automobile parked near the front door of the building and obtained a shotgun. R. J. Lockhart thereupon fired twice, the shot going through the glass in the front door of the building. Freasure Lockhart passed the ammunition to R. J. Lockhart. During this shooting one of the appellants was heard to say 'We'll show them who the Lockharts are.'
The appellants presented no evidence in the trial below.
The general affirmative charge requested in writing by each accused was refused by the court. The court's action in such premises was correct as the evidence presented by the State was abundant in its tendency to establish the offense charged.
Each appellant also filed a motion to be discharged on the ground that there was a variance between complaint and proof. This motion was denied by the court.
In connection with their pleas of former jeopardy the appellants introduced the bench notes of the County Court Judge. In these bench notes it appears that all of the offenses with which the appellants were charged had been lined out except the offense of shooting into a building. It was clearly within the power of the County Judge to strike, by way of amendment, the charges which were stricken. There is no showing that any person other than the County Judge did strike the stricken charges. It is our conclusion that the bench notes themselves clearly indicate that the verdict of guilty is referable only to the offense of shooting into a building.
However in addition the transcript of the County Court was introduced by the State in the hearing on the pleas of former jeopardy. This transcript contained a minute entry or judgment of the County Court showing that each of these accused was found guilty in the County Court only of the offense of shooting into a building.
A minute entry constitutes the final record of a judgment. It cannot, in a court of record, be impeached or aided by the judge's bench notes, or memoranda, which operate only as a direction to the clerk as to what judgments and orders shall be entered on the court's records. Calvert v. State, 26 Ala.App. 189, 155 So. 389. While a County Court is ordinarily not a court of record and its judicial acts are not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamilton v. State
...and orders shall be entered on the court's records. Ex parte Haynes (Haynes v. State), 39 Ala.App. 349, 98 So.2d 670; Lockhart v. State, 34 Ala.App. 297, 39 So.2d 40. In Du Pree v. Hart, 242 Ala. 690, 8 So.2d 183, 186, it is 'It is said in Briggs v. Tennessee C., I & Ry. Co., 175 Ala. 130, ......
-
Gaines v. State, 1 Div. 736
...the name of the establishment in possession of the premises were adequately set out in the indictment. Compare, Lockhart v. State, 34 Ala.App. 297, 300, 39 So.2d 40 (1949). The appellant was aware of the offense against which he had to defend and he disputed neither the identification of th......
-
Pitts v. State, 5 Div. 293
...appellant's prior conviction for possession of marihuana was permissible. Gandy v. State, 86 Ala. 20, 5 So. 420. In Lockhart v. State, 34 Ala.App. 297, 39 So.2d 40, this court 'A minute entry constitutes the final record of a judgment. It cannot, in a court of record, be impeached or aided ......
-
Noah v. State, 2 Div. 900
...74 So. 864, 865, and it cannot be aided or contradicted by bench notes. Calvert v. State, 26 Ala.App. 189, 155 So. 389; Lockhart v. State, 34 Ala.App. 297, 39 So.2d 40. Insistence is made that the statute, Section 69(1), Title 8, Code, is void for ambiguity and indefiniteness, in that a dif......