Palmer v. State
Decision Date | 06 July 1910 |
Citation | 53 So. 283,168 Ala. 124 |
Parties | PALMER ET AL. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; C. P. Almon, Judge.
Hez Palmer and Jennie Langston were convicted of living in adultery, and they appeal. Dismissed as to defendant Langston, and reversed and remanded as to defendant Palmer.
The following charges were refused to the defendants.
A. F Fite, for appellants.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
A verdict and confession without a judgment of guilt by the court will not support an appeal. Ayers v. State, 71 Ala. 11; Joyner v. State, 78 Ala. 448; Nichols v. State, 100 Ala. 23, 14 So. 539; Wright v State, 103 Ala. 96, 15 So. 506; Bridges v State, 124 Ala. 90, 27 So. 474; Marks v. State, 131 Ala. 44, 31 So. 18; Mayers v. State, 147 Ala. 687, 40 So. 658; Collins v. State, 148 Ala. 667, 41 So. 672. When, however, there is a sentence by the trial court in compliance with the verdict of guilty, as disclosed by the judgment entry, there is implied a judgment of guilt, and the judgment of conviction is shown to be sufficient. Talbert v. State, 140 Ala. 96, 37 So. 78, and cases there cited. The court sentenced Hez Palmer, one of the appellants, and the judgment as to him was sufficient to support an appeal. There was no judgment of guilt and no sentence as to Jennie Langston, and her appeal must be dismissed.
The statute (section 6221, Code 1907) is not violative of the Constitution because it does not fix a limit on the fine. 12 Cyc. 966, and cases cited in notes 9 and 10. Moreover, section 7622 of the Code of 1907 fixes a fine at not more than $500 in all misdemeanors when the punishment is not particularly specified in the Code. The judge in the oral charge should have limited the jury to a maximum fine of $500, but the verdict of the jury cured the error, as they assessed the lowest fine authorized by the statute.
There was evidence from which the jury could infer that the offense was committed in Marion county. The trial was had in said county and a state witness testified that they then lived in the county, and the proof showed that they had been seen together at their respective homes, and that they had not moved into or from another or other counties during the period covering their alleged illicit relations.
There was no error in permitting the witness Hallmark to testify on redirect as to the conversation he had with Monteray...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Scott v. State
...70 Ala. 29; Richardson v. State, 237 Ala. 11, 186 So. 580; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Malone, 109 Ala. 509, 20 So. 33; Palmer v. State, 168 Ala. 124, 53 So. 283. We not called upon to make decision on this point which appears to be in a conflicting state. In the case at bar counsel for appel......
-
Smith v. State
...if the maximum penalty is fixed by a general or related statute." Andreas v. Clark, 71 F.2d 908, 909 (9th Cir.1934); Palmer v. State, 168 Ala. 124, 53 So. 283 (1910); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law, Section 25 Alabama has no general statute fixing the maximum penalty which may be imposed for a felo......
-
Abercrombie v. State
... ... Haley v. State, 63 Ala. 83; ... Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 29; Martin v ... State, 119 Ala. 1, 25 So. 255; Cathcart v. Webb & ... Morgan, 144 Ala. 559, 42 So. 25; Richardson v ... State, 237 Ala. 11, 186 So. 580; Louisville & N. R ... Co. v. Malone, 109 Ala. 509, 20 So. 33; Palmer et al. v ... State, 168 Ala. 124, 53 So. 283 ... In the ... case at bar the solicitor did not only interrogate the ... appellant's wife on the matter we have indicated, but ... asked her also if she told the officer that the deceased was ... drinking. To this she replied in the ... ...
-
Moore v. State, 6 Div. 939.
...27 Ala.App. 493, 175 So. 415; Smith v. State, 21 Ala.App. 497, 109 So. 530; McGrew v. State, 21 Ala.App. 266, 107 So. 328; Palmer v. State, 168 Ala. 124, 53 So. 283; Tinney v. State, 111 Ala. 74, 20 So. The proof of venue was not rendered hearsay because the prosecutrix said she threw out t......