Newsome v. State, 8 Div. 101
Decision Date | 05 December 1972 |
Docket Number | 8 Div. 101 |
Citation | 49 Ala.App. 248,270 So.2d 680 |
Parties | Ozzie NEWSOME v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Holt & McKenzie, Florence, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Charles H. Barnes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Ozzie Newsome was indicted for transporting in quantities of five gallons or more alcoholic beverages prohibited by law. He was arrested by police officers after a high speed nighttime chase on the highways of Lauderdale County. They found fifty of fifty-one cases of beer which appellant later admitted having obtained in Tennessee. Appellant failed to appear in court for arraignment on September 18, 1968. The record contains the following:
At the trial, however, no further mention was made of the arraignment. After the selection of the jury, the record contains the following entry:
'(Mr. Tate read the Indictment and stated the case to the jury.)
'THE COURT: Now, from the Defendant.
'(Mr. Holt stated the Defendant's case to the jury and pleaded not guilty.)'
The jury found appellant guilty and the court sentenced him to two years imprisonment Appellant then moved for a new trial and the court granted the motion. He was retried and found guilty a second time, whereupon the court sentenced him to three years imprisonment.
Appellant first urges that he was not properly arraigned before the first trial by having the indictment read to him and having the opportunity to plead in person to the offense charged. The applicable statutes are §§ 276 and 288--10 of Tit. 15, Code of Alabama, 1940, recompiled 1958, which reads as follows:
The decisions of our Supreme Court and of this Court support appellant's contention. The statutes require that a defendant be arraigned and advised by the court of the charge against him, and further, that where the defendant has been indicted for a felony, he must be called upon to plead in person. Thomas v. State, 255 Ala. 632, 53 So.2d 340, and Boyd v. State, 41 Ala.App. 507, 138 So.2d 60. If the record does not affirmatively show that the defendant pleaded in person to the indictment, or, if he stood mute, that the court entered a plea of not guilty for him, then the judgment of confiction must be reversed. Hamilton v. State, 147 Ala. 110, 41 So. 940; McClendon v. State, 44 Ala.App. 558, 216 So.2d 302; and Rorex v. State, 44 Ala.App. 112, 203 So.2d 294.
The record reveals that at to time after the appellant failed to appear on the date set for his arraignment was he called upon to answer in person the charges of the indictment. This oversight could have been cured by the trial court's entering a plea of not guilty for appellant as if he had stood mute when called upon to plead to the indictment. This could have been done at any time before or during the trial before the jury retired, since it is obvious from the record that the trial was conducted with the full consent and participation of the appellant. Fernandez and White v. State, 7 Ala. 511; Carr v. State, 43 Ala.App. 481, 192 So.2d 741. The mere notation, 'issue being joined,' has been held to satisfy the requirement of an arraignment and plea. Clayton v. State, 16 Ala.App. 432, 78 So. 462.
As the record fails to show that appellant personally pleaded to the indictment or that the trial court entered a plea of not guilty for him, the judgment of conviction must be reversed.
Appellant testified at trial that he was passing through Alabama on his way to deliver the beer to a man in Mississippi. He argues on appeal that the above testimony was not sufficiently rebutted by the State. Whether the prohibited alcoholic beverages were destined for Alabama or were in interstate commerce was a question for the jury. Dotson v. State, 24 Ala.App. 216, 135 So. 159, cert. denied 223 Ala. 229, 135 So. 160. Had the jury determined appellant to be in fact in route to Mississippi, his journey would fall within the protection afforded by the interstate commerce...
To continue reading
Request your trial