Meadows v. State
| Decision Date | 30 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 185 |
| Citation | 105 So. 428,21 Ala.App. 72 |
| Parties | MEADOWS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied August 4, 1925
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cherokee County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Arthur Meadows was convicted of an offense, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
William H. Cather and E.O. McCord & Son, all of Gadsden, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted and tried for the offense known to the law as "obtaining property by false pretense"; the indictment being drawn in accordance with the Code form prescribed for that offense, as defined by section 6920 of the Code of 1907.
All the proceedings, with the exception to be noted, appear regular and free from prejudicial error. We have considered the exceptions reserved on the trial of appellant in the court below, and argued for reversal here, but are of the opinion there is no merit in any of them. So far as the record failing to affirmatively show that the indictment was returned into court in the presence of the required number of grand jurors is concerned, we think appellant's contention has already been answered adversely to him by the Supreme Court in the case of Williams v. State, 150 Ala. 84, 43 So. 182.
After the jury had regularly returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty "as charged in the indictment," the trial court rendered judgment as follows:
"It is therefore considered and adjudged by the court that the defendant is guilty of forgery in the first degree as charged in the indictment."
Of course, that was error, and the judgment must be reversed. The learned judge trying the case is usually so accurate that we cannot but believe this must be an error of the typist or copyist in preparing the record to be sent up here. However, it is not such an error (even if our surmise is true) as is self-correcting, and we cannot speculate or guess, but must pass upon the record as it comes before us.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sexton v. State
... ... 16 C.J. 1303 ... In ... Stephens v. State, 22 Ala. App. 533, 118 So. 231, ... this court said: "Judgment must be reversed on appeal, ... where judgment and sentence are not responsive to the ... jury's verdict." See, also, Erwin v. State, ... 21 Ala. App. 376, 108 So. 645; Meadows v. State, 21 ... Ala. App. 72, 105 So. 428; McCullers v. State, 21 ... Ala. App. 546, 109 So. 895; Collins v. State, 21 ... Ala. App. 192, 106 So. 624 ... The ... foregoing relative to necessary requisites of judgments, if ... followed by those upon whom the duty devolves, should be ... ...
-
Birdsong v. State, CR-04-0550.
...Ala. 84, 43 So. 182 (1907); McKee v. State, 82 Ala. 32, 2 So. 451 (1887); Russell v. State, 33 Ala. 366 (1859); and Meadows v. State, 105 So. 428, 21 Ala.App. 72 (1925). The indictment in this case was valid, and any objection to the indictment would have been baseless. "[C]ounsel could not......
-
McCullers v. State
... ... The ... court charged out the second count. The jury returned a ... verdict of conviction under the first count. Whereupon there ... was an adjudication by the court of guilt as charged in the ... second count. In this there was reversible error. Meadows ... v. State (Ala.App.) 105 So. 428; Collins v. State ... (Ala.App.) 106 So. 624 ... As the ... case must be reversed for the error indicated, and as all ... other questions presented involve only familiar principles of ... law, many times considered by this and the Supreme Court, a ... ...
-
Aris v. State, 7 Div. 382
...count, and did not plead guilty to Count Two, which charged grand larceny. This was not substantial error as was held in Meadows v. State, 21 Ala.App. 72, 105 So. 428, and McGee v. State, 22 Ala.App. 500, 117 So. 487, but was clearly In our opinion, defendant stands lawfully convicted of bu......