Petty v. State
| Decision Date | 10 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 65. |
| Citation | 224 Ala. 451,140 So. 585 |
| Parties | PETTY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied March 31, 1932.
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Fed alias Fred, alias F. J., Petty was convicted of having carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Haralson & Son, J. A. Johnson, C. A. Wolfes, and J. D. Pope, all of Ft. Payne, for appellant.
Thos E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Thos. Seay Lawson, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
Section 8665 of the Code of 1923 provides for grand juries, and for counties having less than fifty thousand population there must be not less than two grand juries for each year, and, when they have completed their labors, in its discretion the court may permit them to take a recess subject to the call of the judge of the circuit, or of the Chief Justice. As the court is given a discretion in the matter, this means that the court can recess the grand jury subject to a future call during the existing term or may adjourn or discharge them for the term. There seems to be some confusion in writing the minutes as to whether the existing grand jury was adjourned or discharged, and it is settled that, when a grand jury is organized, it is presumed to continue until the half yearly ending of the term, unless discharged by an order of the court. Caldwell v. State, 203 Ala. 412, 84 So. 272; Riley v. State, 209 Ala. 505, 96 So. 599. Here, conceding that it is doubtful whether the order made discharged or recessed the grand jury, yet, when the trial judge ordered a special call or session of the court and a special grand jury for same, this, in legal effect, operated, ipso facto, to discharge the old or existing grand jury.
The trial court could have well sustained appropriate demurrers to the defendant's special pleas 1 to 9 inclusive, but, as this was not done, and as they were not proven, properly gave the general charge in favor of the State on this issue. The pleas, among other things, charge the illegality of the indictment or the illegality of the grand jury for the reasons therein set out, and, as a matter of fact, the things therein set out did not render the special grand jury or the indictment illegal, and the trial court was justified, as matter of law, in giving the general charge for the state as to the pleas in abatement.
True section 8644 of the Code of 1923 provides that, when a person stands indicted for a capital felony, the court must on the first day of the term, or as soon as practicable thereafter, make an order for summoning a special venire, but the court is given a discretion as to when it is practicable, and, in this instance, the defendant got the benefit of a special venire upon the trial of the main case on its merits. But it is insisted that he was entitled to have the issues on his pleas in abatement also tried by the special venire. There may be force in this contention,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Oliver v. State
...209 Ala. 505, 96 So. 599; Kilpatrick v. State, 213 Ala. 358, 104 So. 656; Hudson v. State, 217 Ala. 479, 480, 116 So. 800; Petty v. State, 224 Ala. 451, 140 So. 585. The record does not show that a special grand jury was called, but that the same grand jury which convened on September 3, 19......
-
State ex rel. Baxley v. Strawbridge
...facilitated. See T. 30, § 72 as to reassemblage. For a discussion or recessing, adjourning or discharging a grand jury, see Petty v. State 224 Ala. 451, 140 So. 585. '* * * 'You * * * do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be), that you will diligently inquire, and true presentment ma......
-
Wyres v. State
...... impaneled, the expiration of the term automatically ending. its life. Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 639, 89 So. 43;. Riley v. State, 209 Ala. 505, 96 So. 599. Once. impaneled a grand jury was presumed to continue until. discharged in one of the above-mentioned ways. Petty v. State, 224 Ala. 451, 140 So. 585. . . Since. terms of court as formerly existed have by statute been. abolished, it is our opinion that now in this State a grand. jury legally impaneled continues its legal existence until. dissolved by order of court, and that such was the law ......
-
Buchler v. District Court In and For Arapahoe County
...of that court year. Certainly, at the termination of the court year the grand jury is dissolved by operation of law. Petty v. State, 224 Ala. 451, 140 So. 585. If the grand jury in this case had no jurisdiction as a de jure body to continue its work into succeeding terms after the expiratio......