Roberts v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 75. |
| Citation | 159 So. 373,26 Ala.App. 331 |
| Parties | ROBERTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb County; A. E. Hawkins, Judge.
Willie Roberts was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and she appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Scott & Dawson and C. A. Wolfes, both of Fort Payne, for appellant.
A. A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.
This is the second appeal in this case and in which former appeals the facts are stated. Roberts v. State, 25 Ala. App. 477, 149 So. 356.
The trial resulting in the judgment from which this appeal is taken was conducted in all things in accordance with the opinion rendered by this court on former appeal, and therefore there is no error appearing in any of the rulings of the court on the trial.
After conviction defendant made a motion for a new trial, in which it is insisted that the verdict of the jury was what is known as a "quotient verdict," i. e., that in fixing the punishment each juror placed a number on a slip of paper, these numbers were then added together and divided by twelve, and the quotient was declared to be the verdict of the jury. Whenever it is legally made to appear that the verdict of a jury is the result of a quotient, i. e. an agreement in advance of a vote that the verdict shall be the result or quotient of a division by twelve of the sum total of all the jurors' separate assessments, either in amount in dollars or terms of imprisonment, such verdict will be set aside on timely motion. Ledbetter v. State, 17 Ala. App. 417, 85 So. 581; Tisdale v. State, 22 Ala. App. 305, 115 So. 146; Stone v. State, 24 Ala. App. 400, 135 So. 646.
The existence of such an agreement on the part of a jury to render a quotient verdict may be inferred from papers and figures found in the jury room immediately after the rendition of the verdict, having earmarks tending to connect such papers and figures with the deliberations of the jury in the particular case. Ledbetter v. State, supra.
This court is convinced that the verdict in this case was the result of a compromise based upon a quotient and as such should not be allowed to stand.
It is also insisted that the conduct of the deputy sheriff in refusing to permit the jury to see the judge, upon their request, relative to the punishment to be fixed, is error. The jury should at all times during their deliberations have access to the judge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houlton v. State
...of manslaughter in first degree held required to be reversed where evidence showed conviction was result of compromise'. Roberts v. State, 26 Ala.App. 331, 159 So. 373. Numerous other incidents occurred during the trial of this case, which in my opinion were highly prejudicial to the substa......
-
Carter v. State
...at all times has access to the trial court for legal instruction. Montgomery v. State, 21 Ala.App. 327, 108 So. 348; Roberts v. State, 26 Ala.App. 331, 159 So. 373." In addition, we think the appellant's objection came too late. He made no objection at the time the juror asked for the addit......
-
Laffity v. State
...at all times has access to the trial court for legal instruction. Montgomery v. State, 21 Ala.App. 327, 108 So. 348; Roberts v. State, 26 Ala.App. 331, 159 So. 373.' " We find the above quoted language applicable to and dispositive of the instant issue. Consequently, we find no error in the......
-
Thomas v. State, 6 Div. 66
...as they may require. Tillison v. State, 32 Ala.App. 397, 27 So.2d 41, aff'd, 248 Ala. 196, 27 So.2d 46 (1946); Roberts v. State, 26 Ala.App. 331, 159 So. 373 (1935); Sanders v. State, 426 So.2d 497 (Ala.Crim.App.1982). A trial judge is not required to repeat any other part of his oral charg......