Padgett v. State, 1 Div. 621
| Decision Date | 08 January 1952 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 621 |
| Citation | 56 So.2d 116,36 Ala.App. 355 |
| Parties | PADGETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Graham H. Sullivan and W. C. Taylor, Mobile, for appellant.
Si Garrett, Atty. Gen., and Thos. M. Galloway, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The accused, a woman twenty-nine years of age, was indicted for perjury. The trial was had by the court without a jury and resulted in a conviction.
The sufficiency of the indictment was raised by demurrers and insistence is made that these should have been sustained.
We will not make any decision on this question, since we are clear to the conclusion that the judgment of conviction should not be allowed to stand. Our view is based on the insufficiency of the evidence to establish the essential allegation: 'willfully and corruptly false.' Green v. State, 41 Ala. 419; Capps v. State, 29 Ala.App. 192, 194 So. 689; 70 C.J.S., Perjury, § 17(a), p. 472.
The evidence in the main is not in dispute.
It appears that a Mr. Fairchild, who had known the defendant for about two years, accompanied her to the office of the Board of Registrars of Mobile County, Alabama. The purpose of the visit was to afford the appellant an opportunity to register and become a qualified elector of the county. Mr. Fairchild acted as her sponsor or supporting witness.
A member of the board administered an oath to the couple and Mr. Fairchild was then furnished with a registration application blank or questionnaire. The couple went to a table near by and filled in the answers to the various questions. The paper was then signed by the appellant as applicant and by Mr. Fairchild as supporting witness.
Mr. Fairchild testified in part:
Question (23) in the application is: '
The answer 'no' appears in response to this question.
Without dispute in the evidence a board member did not call the appellant's nor Mr. Fairchild's attention to the indicated sections of the constitution or code. In fact, the matter was in no manner discussed by a board member, Mr. Fairchild, or appellant there in the office.
The application blank also contains this paragraph:
'Action of the Board
'State of Alabama
_____ County}
'Before the Board of Registrars in session in and for Said State and County personally appeared _____, who executed the foregoing application in the manner and form therein stated. The Board having further examined said applicant under oath, touching his qualifications under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 181, Constitution of Alabama, 1901, and sub-sections (1) and (2) of Title 17, Section 32, Code of Alabama, 1940, and having fully considered the foregoing application as executed, adjudges said applicant entitled to be registered and he was duly registered on this the 31st day of Jan. 1950, in 6 ward) in said county.
'(Signed) ________
(Signed) Mrs. D. C. Randle'
A member of the board testified that the appellant was not examined touching her qualifications under the sections of the constitution and code appearing in the paragraph just above.
The State proved that about a year prior to the time of registration as outlined above the appellant was convicted of vagrancy in the Circuit Court of Mobile County. The specific nature of the crime is not made known by the record here. There are thirteen different offenses which constitute vagrancy under the statute; Title 14, Sec. 437, Code 1940.
The indictment in the case at bar is predicated or based on the answer to question (23) of the application. We have set out this question herein above.
We do not want to be understood as holding that as a prerequisite to a successful prosecution for perjury it was required that a board member call attention of the applicant to the indicated sections of the constitution and code, or that the applicant should be examined touching her qualification under said sections. We will leave this as an open...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van Antwerp v. State
...without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. Padgett v. State, 36 Ala.App. 355, 56 So.2d 116 (1952). This excludes the concept of criminal liability for a misrepresentation made innocently and by mistake in a prosecuti......
-
Evans v. State
...justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.'" Padgett v. State, 36 Ala.App. 355, 357, 56 So.2d 116 (1952) (holding that, while registering to vote, a defendant who falsely replied that he had never been convicted of a crime d......
-
Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. State, 3 Div. 316
...labor for the county for not more than six months at the discretion of the court trying the case.' (Emphasis added) In Padgett v. State, 36 Ala.App. 355, 56 So.2d 116, Presiding Judge Carr 'A 'willful' act may be described as one 'done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justif......
-
Deen v. Holderfield
...act is different from a mere negligent act is an elemental principle of law. The Court of Appeals, in the case of Padgett v. State, 36 Ala.App. 355, 56 So.2d 116, 'A 'willful' act may be described as one 'done intentionally, knowingly, and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distingui......