Nixon v. State

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Citation286 So.2d 315,291 Ala. 657
PartiesIn re Eddie NIXON, alias Edward 'Edwierdo' Nixon v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte STATE of Alabama ex rel. ATTORNEY GENERAL. SC 311.
Decision Date06 September 1973

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Don C. Dickert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. David L. Thomas, Huntsville, for respondent.

MADDOX, Justice.

Defendant was indicted on October 2, 1970, for possessing, transporting, delivering, selling, etc., seven tablets containing Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD--25). He was convicted of possession of LSD in a trial by jury in the Madison Circuit Court on October 23, 1970.

On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the judgment of conviction was reversed, that court holding that the trial court committed reversible error in overruling the defendant's motion to quash the jury venire.

It is clear from the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals and from an examination of the original record 1 that the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the trial court 'committed reversible error in overruling the motion to quash without giving the movant an opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.' We think the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in reversing the trial for at least these reasons: (1) the defendant did not ask for any relief or for an opportunity to be heard; (2) the order of the trial court denying the motion states that the motion 'came on to be heard' and (3) the presumption is in favor of the regularity of proceedings surrounding the selection of the jury venire, in the absence of proof to the contrary, or an offer of such proof.

The Court of Criminal Appeals admits that the defendant made no prayer for any specific relief in his motion to quash.

The motion to quash does not contain a request to be heard and present evidence. While the record does not show that a hearing was held, the record does not show that a hearing was not held. In fact, the order of the trial court denying the motion to quash states as follows:

'This cause coming on to be heard on a Motion by the Defendant to quash the jury venire and for continuance and hearing on same, submitted to me on the 22nd day of October, 1970, and the Court having considered same, is of the opinion that the Motion is not well taken.'

The Court of Criminal Appeals held that one of the grounds of the motion alleged that the venire did not represent a cross-section of the citizens of Madison County, and that this Court held on September 3, 1970 that the system employed by the jury commission of Madison County in selecting jurors to be enrolled then in effect and followed did not meet the mandates of law. State, ex rel. Gregg v. Maples, 286 Ala. 274, 239 So.2d 198 (1970). The Court of Criminal Appeals held:

'Whether the jury commission thereafter (September 3, 1970) and before October 22, 1970, the date the motion was filed and the defendant put to trial, revised the jury roll in accordance with the Supreme Court decision, supra, is not shown by the record before us.'

There is a presumption that no legal fraud exists in the system used for the selection of jurors, in the absence of proof to the contrary, or an offer of such proof. Smith v. Louisville & N.R.R., 219 Ala. 676, 123 So. 57 (1929). It is apparent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Dobyne v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 15 Abril 1994
    ......State, 362 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Ala.1978) (citation omitted). 'There is a presumption that no legal fraud exists in the system used for the selection of jurors, in the absence of proof to the contrary, or an offer of such proof.' Nixon v. State, 291 Ala. 657, 286 So.2d 315, 317 (1973)." .         Windsor, --- So.2d at ----. Based on Windsor, we hold that no error occurred when the clerk excused the jurors from service by telephone. .         The appellant also argues that it was error for the clerk to excuse ......
  • McWhorter v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 27 Agosto 1999
    ......State, 362 So.2d 1271, 1273 (Ala.1978) (citation omitted). "There is a presumption that no legal fraud exists in the system used in the selection of jurors, in the absence of proof to the contrary, or an offer of such proof." Nixon v. 781 So.2d 299 State, 291 Ala. 657, 286 So.2d 315, 317 (1973).'" .          Dobyne v. State, 672 So.2d 1319, 1327 (Ala. Cr.App.1994), aff'd, 672 So.2d 1354 (Ala. 1995) . .         Therefore, in the present case, the potential jurors were properly excused before trial for ......
  • Morrison v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 20 Agosto 1985
    ...... This court held that: .         "There is a presumption that no legal fraud exists with reference to the system used for the selection of jurors in the absence of proof to the contrary or an offer of such proof. Nixon v. State, 291 Ala. 657, 286 So.2d 315. The appellant has not met this burden of proof, and no evidence is shown in the record that the jury roll did not represent a cross-section of the community. Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d 759." .         Finding this, ......
  • Bui v. State, 3 Div. 557
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • 12 Abril 1988
    ...... " 'There is a presumption that no legal fraud exists in the system used for the selection of jurors, in the absence of proof to the contrary, or an offer of such proof.' Nixon v. State, 291 Ala. 657, 658, 286 So.2d 315 (1973)." Wesley v. State, 424 So.2d 648, 650 (Ala.Cr.App.1982); Oyarzun v. Pittman, 367 So.2d 574 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 584 (Ala.1979); Ala.Digest, Criminal Law, Key No. 322. Accordingly, we find no plain error. "The defendant ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT