Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 11 June 1940 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 484. |
| Citation | 196 So. 753,29 Ala.App. 395 |
| Parties | MARTIN ET AL. v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Talmadge Martin and Bud Martin were convicted of distilling prohibited liquors and unlawfully possessing a still, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Savage & Savage, of Centre, for appellants.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The record presents but a single question. It will be stated in this way: Appellants were jointly indicted for a felony. They were jointly tried.
After the submission of the case to the jury the jury retired to the jury room, and after it had deliberated for some time it came back into open court to report its "verdict."
After being asked by the court if it had reached a verdict one member of the jury handed to the Clerk the indictment, upon the back of which was written the following "verdict:" "We the jury find the defendant Bud Martin guilty as charged in the indictment but we are not able to agree as to defendant Talmadge Martin." And the same was signed "T. A. Young, Foreman."
Said "verdict" was then and there read aloud in open court by the Clerk.
Thereupon and over the timely objections of counsel for the defendants the court sent the jury back to its room for further deliberation and consideration of the case, sending its written and reported "verdict" back with it.
Immediately after the Clerk had read such "verdict" the defendants moved the court for a mistrial as to both defendants; and, separately, as to Talmadge Martin. And reserved due exceptions to the overruling of said motions.
At the time of the jury's report to the court of its said "verdict" it did not ask for and did not receive any further charge, advice or instructions from the court other than the court's instruction "to return to its room and consider the case further."
The jury returned to its room and after being out all night, it having been kept together during the night, it returned the following verdict during the next morning session of the court: (sic).
Nothing seems better settled than that it is the duty of the court to look after the form and substance of the verdict of the jury, so as to prevent an unintelligible or insufficient verdict from passing into the records of the court. Bentley v. State, 20 Ala.App. 635, 104 So. 679.
Nor than that it is never improper for the court to urge upon the jury the duty of trying to reach an agreement, so long as the court does not suggest which way the verdict should be returned. Bufkins v. State, 20 Ala.App. 457, 103 So. 902, certiorari denied, Ex parte Bufkins, 212 Ala. 638, 103 So. 906.
Likewise it is well established that the duration of the deliberations by the jury is committed to the sound discretion of the court; and the exercise of that discretion, in a given case, will not be disturbed on appeal except for a clearly shown abuse thereof. Buntin v. City of Danville, 93 Va. 200, 212, 24...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hart v. State
... ... " 'Nothing seems better settled than that it is the duty of the court to look after the form and substance of the verdict of the jury, so as to prevent an unintelligible or insufficient verdict from passing into the records of the court.' Martin v. State, 29 Ala.App. 395, 396, ... Page 533 ... 196 So. 753, 753-54 (1940). Accord, Bentley v. State, 20 Ala.App. 635, 104 So. 679 (1925). The instructions of the trial judge sending the jury back for further deliberations did not constitute a directed verdict or deprive the defendant of ... ...
-
Davis v. State
...cert. denied, 390 So.2d 1093 (Ala.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004, 101 S.Ct. 1715, 68 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Martin v. State, 29 Ala.App. 395, 196 So. 753 (1940).'" Edwards v. State, 668 So.2d 167, 169 (Ala.Cr.App.1995)(quoting Hollis v. State, 417 So.2d 617, 620 (Ala.Cr.App. "`The [trial] ......
-
Kuenzel v. State
...jury, so as to prevent an unintelligible or insufficient verdict from passing into the records of the court." Martin v. State, 29 Ala.App. 395, 396, 196 So. 753, 753-54 (1940). Accord, Bentley v. State, 20 Ala.App. 635, 104 So. 679 (1925). The instructions of the trial judge sending the jur......
-
State v. Albers
...DeGrandis v. Fay (1964) (CA 2 NY), 335 F.2d 173, 176 (24 hours after two notes from the jury expressing fatigue); Martin v. State (1940), 29 Ala.App. 395, 196 So. 753, 754 (overnight); Mills v. People (1961), 146 Colo. 457, 362 P.2d 152, cert. den., 369 U.S. 841, 82 S.Ct. 869, 7 L.Ed.2d 846......