Monroe v. State
| Decision Date | 14 May 1903 |
| Parties | MONROE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Elmore County Court; H. J. Lancaster, Judge.
Hoxie Monroe was convicted of crime, and appeals. Reversed.
The prosecution against the appellant in this case was commenced by an affidavit made by C. H. Daniel, which affidavit was in words and figures as follows: "Before me, H. J Lancaster, judge of the county court of said county personally appeared C. H. Daniel, who, by me first duly sworn, deposes and says that he has reasons to believe, and does believe, that within twelve months before making this affidavit, and in said county, Hox Monroe, alias Hoxie Monroe, with the purpose to hinder, delay, or defraud affiant, who had a lawful and valid claim thereto, under a written instrument lien created by law, for rent or advances or other lawful and valid claim, verbal or written, did sell or remove personal property, consisting of ten bushels of corn, of the value of seven and no/100 ($7) dollars, the said Hox Monroe, alias Hoxie Monroe, having at the time a knowledge of the existence of such claim, against the peace and dignity of the state of Alabama." Upon this affidavit a warrant of arrest was issued, and the defendant was tried and convicted of the offense charged.
Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The affirmation of reasons to believe and belief, in a complaint is not the equivalent of the affirmation of the existence of probable cause to believe and belief that a designated offense was committed by a party named. It is of easy conception that a person might have reasons to believe that a fact exists, and therefore believe that it does exist, without having that probable cause for belief of its existence, the affirmation of which is the necessary basis, under the Constitution and statute, for a warrant of arrest and prosecution to conviction. The complaint in this case affirms only that the affiant "has reasons to believe and does believe" that the defendant committed a designated offense. It did not authorize the issuance of the warrant of arrest, it does not support the judgment of conviction, and no valid judgment can be rendered upon it. The judgment will therefore be reversed, and a judgment will be here entered discharging the defendant. Johnson v. State, 82 Ala. 29, 2 So. 466; Miles v. State, 94 Ala. 106, 11 So. 403; Butler v. State, 130 Ala. 127, 30 So. 338.
Reversed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dothan v. Holloway
...the offense charged. Id. This Court held that this omission "rendered the affidavit fatally defective and void," citing Monroe v. State, 137 Ala. 88, 34 So. 382 (1902); Butler v. State, supra; Miles v. State, supra; Johnson v. State, supra; and Code of 1896, § 4600, which "Warrant of arrest......
-
Robertson v. State
... ... requiring the production of such proof, as a condition ... precedent to the issuance of process. The courts of this ... state have uniformly required an affidavit that becomes the ... basis of a criminal proceeding to be sufficient. Monroe ... v. State, 137 Ala. 88, 34 So. 382; Sims v ... State, 137 Ala. 79, 34 So. 400; Butler v ... State, 130 Ala. 127, 30 So. 338. Both of the parties in ... this case rely upon the case of Worthen v. State ex rel ... Verner, 189 Ala. 395, 66 So. 686, as supporting their ... respective ... ...
-
Loeb v. State
... ... Cranch, 448, 2 L.Ed. 495; United States v. Tureaud, ... 20 F. 621; State v. Mitchell, 1 S. C. L. (1 Bay) ... 267; Blythe v. Tompkin, 2 Abb. Pr. 468; People ... v. Heffron, 63 Mich. 527, 19 N.W. 170; Miller v ... United States, 8 Okla. 315, 57 P. 836; Monroe v. The ... State, 137 Ala. 88, 34 So. 382; Swart v ... Kimball, 43 Mich. 451, 5 N.W. 640; Mulkins v ... United, 10 Okla. 288, 61 P. 925; United States v ... Polite, 35 F. 58; Re Dana, 68 F. 895; United States ... v. Collins, 79 F. 65; United States v ... Sapinkow, 90 F. 694; ... ...
-
Mitchell v. State
...that the cause is reversed and an order be entered discharging the defendant. Butler v. State, 130 Ala. 127, 30 So. 338; Monroe v. State, 137 Ala. 88, 34 So. 382; Garrett v. State, 140 Ala. 667, 37 So. Bice v. State, 16 Ala.App. 416, 78 So. 410. The same result was accomplished by the judgm......