McClendon v. State
| Decision Date | 31 August 1926 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 324 |
| Citation | 21 Ala.App. 494,109 So. 526 |
| Parties | McCLENDON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Ona May McClendon was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and she appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Rayburn Wright & Rayburn, of Guntersville, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Chas. H. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
From a judgment of conviction for manslaughter in the first degree, this appeal was taken. We note from the record that this appellant was attended by counsel on the trial of this case in the court below, but no brief has been filed in this court in her behalf. There is a brief filed here in behalf of the state by the Attorney General.
The first question presented for our consideration is that of venue. It is not necessary to allege where the offense was committed, but it must be proved on the trial to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is preferred. In this case the state made several attempts to prove the venue, but produced no witness who could, would, or did testify that the offense here complained of was committed within the territorial subdivision of Marshall county, known as the Albertville division of the circuit court of Marshall county, and in said circuit court the indictment in this case was preferred. The bill of exceptions purports to contain all the evidence adduced upon this trial. As stated, proof of venue is not shown. This question is presented in nearly every conceivable form, and failure to prove the venue must of necessity work a reversal of the judgment of conviction. "A conviction in a criminal case can never be had except upon proof of the venue." Bowdon v. State, 91 Ala. 61, 8 So. 694; Justice v. State, 99 Ala. 180, 13 So. 658; Randolph v. State, 100 Ala. 139, 14 So. 792. A reading of all the evidence on the subject of venue fails to disclose that any witness testified that the offense was committed within the Albertville division of the circuit court of Marshall county, nor was there any evidence adduced from which this fact could be properly inferred.
There are numerous other questions presented, but all of them need not be discussed. On cross-examination of the defendant, the state propounded to her several questions as to whether or not she, the witness, had had the gonorrhea, etc., and if she had not been treated for that disease, all of which was answered in the negative. This inquiry had no place upon the trial of this case; it did not even tend to shed any light upon the issues involved. It was highly prejudicial to the substantial rights of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilburn v. State
...on other grounds, 257 Ala. 95, 57 So.2d 384 (1952); King v. State, 32 Ala.App. 134, 135, 22 So.2d 448 (1945); McClendon v. State, 21 Ala.App. 494, 495, 109 So. 526 (1926). II After the defendant had been arrested, her child was taken into custody by the St. Clair Department of Human Resourc......
-
Coleman v. State
...(Ala.Cr.App.1980); McGhee v. State, 41 Ala.App. 669, 149 So.2d 1 (1962), affirmed, 274 Ala. 373, 149 So.2d 5 (1963); McClendon v. State, 21 Ala.App. 494, 109 So. 526 (1926). "A negative answer to a question asked on cross-examination even though the question itself was improper cannot resul......
-
Dixon v. State
...the error, if any, was rendered harmless by the negative answer. Hamlett v. State, 19 Ala.App. 218, 96 So. 371; McClendon v. State, 21 Ala.App. 494, 109 So. 526; Moomaw v. State, 24 Ala.App. 459, 137 So. 40; Shouse v. State, 36 Ala.App. 614, 63 So.2d 722. This doctrine is also equally appli......
- Gulley v. State