Owens v. State
| Decision Date | 28 November 1894 |
| Citation | 104 Ala. 18,16 So. 575 |
| Parties | OWENS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from circuit court, Crenshaw county; John R. Tyson, Judge.
Ed. Owens was convicted of robbery, and appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of robbery, and sentenced to suffer imprisonment in the penitentiary for a period of 10 years. After conviction, he moved, in arrest of judgment, that the first count of the indictment was fatally defective in that it failed to describe the property alleged to have been taken with sufficient definiteness; and, secondly, that the second count was defective for the same reason, and that there was a misjoinder of offenses in the second count. In the first count the property is described as "thirty dollars in United States paper currency, the exact description and denomination of which is to the grand jury unknown, of the value of thirty dollars, the personal property of Millie Daniel, from her person," etc. In the case of Grant v. State, 55 Ala. 201, the property was described as "three hundred and twenty dollars in national currency," followed by an averment that the particular denomination was unknown to the grand jury, and it was held that the description was sufficient. There have been numerous decisions since, affirming the same principle. Gady v. State, 83 Ala. 51, 3 So. 429; Carden v. State, 89 Ala. 130, 7 So. 801; Levy v. State, 79 Ala. 259; Duvall v. State, 63 Ala. 12. The rule is that, when there are good and bad counts in an indictment, and there is a general verdict of guilty, the conviction will be referred to the good count. No objection was taken to indictment or either count, by demurrer or otherwise, but the defendant went to trial upon a plea of not guilty to the indictment as a whole. We have shown that the first count was good, and the conviction can be sustained on that count. We need not consider the objection to the second count. Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Levert v. State
... ... the commission of that felony. Section 4556, Form 96 ... The ... description of the property alleged to have been feloniously ... taken was sufficient. Verberg v. State, 137 Ala. 73, ... 34 So. 848, 97 Am. St. Rep. 17; Owens v. State, 104 ... Ala. 18, 16 So. 575; Brown v. State, 120 Ala. 342, ... 349, 25 So. 182; Baldwin v. State, 204 Ala. 91, 85 ... So. 304; Gady v. State, 83 Ala. 51, 3 So. 429; ... Carden v. State, 89 Ala. 130, 7 So. 801; Duvall ... v. State, 63 Ala. 12 ... Defendant ... was duly ... ...
-
Edwards v. State, 7 Div. 691
...or that the particular denomination is unknown to the grand jury. Barddell v. State, 144 Ala. 54, 39 So. 975 (1906); Owens v. State, 104 Ala. 18, 16 So. 575 (1893); Burney v. State, 87 Ala. 80, 6 So. 391 (1888); Croker v. State, 47 Ala. 53 (1872); Alabama Code Section 15-8-26, Thus, while t......
-
Cleveland v. State
... ... is sufficient, and a general verdict of guilty is returned, ... it will be referred to the good count. May v. State, ... 85 Ala. 14, 5 So. 14. A general verdict under an indictment ... containing several counts is good where there was but one ... offense alleged. Owens v. State, 104 Ala. 18, 16 So ... 575; Towns v. State, 111 Ala. 1, 20 So. 598; ... Kilgore v. State, 74 Ala. 1 ... We have ... searched the record carefully for errors, and we find none ... which were prejudicial to the defendant or which would ... justify the reversal of the ... ...
-
Webber v. State
...the particular denominations of money are unknown to the grand jury is sufficient description. One of the oldest of these is Owens v. State, 104 Ala. 18, 16 So. 575. There, the Alabama Supreme Court cited Grant v. State, 55 Ala. 201, in which "the property was described as 'three hundred an......