Richardson v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 1926 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 427 |
| Citation | 111 So. 204,215 Ala. 318 |
| Parties | RICHARDSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Court of Appeals.
Paul Richardson was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The judgment of conviction being there reversed, the State brings this petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision there rendered in Paul Richardson v. State, 111 So. 202. Writ granted. Reversed and remanded.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Hybart & Hare, of Monroeville, opposed.
A criminal prosecution covers offenses only which were committed before prosecution begun and within the statutory period of limitation. Two questions of time are involved: (a) When was the offense committed? (b) When was the prosecution begun? The burden is on the state as to both.
The witnesses fix the time of the offense in their testimony. Where, as here, the evidence shows without conflict the offense was committed, if at all, some three months before the trial on appeal in the circuit court, this is sufficient to show the offense was not barred when the prosecution was begun in the county court.
But it does not go to the point that the offense given in evidence was committed before the prosecution was begun in the county court. Of this fact, the affidavit instituting the prosecution in the county court, or the certified transcript thereof, sent up under Code, § 3839, is the best evidence.
For the purpose of suspending the running of the statute of limitation, the prosecution is begun by the issuance of the warrant, Code, § 4934. But the warrant is based on the affidavit, and could not cover offenses subsequent to the affidavit. In the nature of the case, the prosecution must pertain to offenses committed before the affidavit is made.
The trial court was not in error in admitting the affidavit in the county court for the limited purpose of showing when the prosecution was begun. The Court of Appeals erred in so holding.
The writ of certiorari is granted, judgmentof reversal vacated, and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals.
Writ granted. Reversed and remanded.
All the Justices concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hulsey v. State
...date of the ‘commencement’ of the prosecution is the date of the issuing of the warrant. Tit. 15, § 225, Code; Richardson [v. State, 215 Ala. 318, 111 So. 204 (1926) ]; and Sherrod v. State, 14 Ala.App. 57, 71 So. 76 (1916). This is true even though a subsequent indictment is found, as long......
-
Lomax v. State of Ala.
...of the statute of limitations. See Griffin v. State, 352 So.2d 847, rev'd on other grounds, 352 So.2d 842 (Ala.1977); Richardson v. State, 215 Ala. 318, 111 So. 204 (1926); Scott v. State, 45 Ala.App. 149, 227 So.2d 436 (Ala.Crim.App.), cert. denied, 284 Ala. 733, 227 So.2d 438 (Ala.1969). ......
-
Griffin v. State
...two questions of time are involved. These are: when was the offense committed; and, when was the prosecution begun. Richardson v. State, 215 Ala. 318, 111 So. 204 (1926); and Davis v. State, 33 Ala.App. 601, 35 So.2d 621 (1948). The date of the "commencement" of the prosecution is the date ......
-
People v. Wright
...must show the commission of an offense before the charge is filed and within the statute of limitations.' In Richardson v. State, 215 Ala. 318, 111 So. 204, 205 the court held that it was essential in order to sustain a conviction that the offense must have been committed before the prosecu......