Robison v. State

Decision Date27 February 1941
Docket Number8 Div. 97.
Citation240 Ala. 638,200 So. 629
PartiesROBISON v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of the State of Alabama, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in the case of Copeland Robison v. State, 200 So. 626, wherein a judgment of conviction for violation of highway law was reversed.

Writ denied.

Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John J. Haynes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

H. H. Hamilton, of Russellville, opposed.

BOULDIN, Justice.

The case of Campbell v. State, 238 Ala. 439, 191 So. 812, is not to be construed as a denial of the power of the Court of Appeals, as an appellate court, on reversal of the judgment of conviction, to discharge the accused in a proper case. The statutes recognize or confer such power. Code 1923, §§ 3258, 3259.

In the Campbell case, the Court of Appeals had erroneously held that the affidavit upon which the prosecution was had was void, and no judgment of conviction could be had thereon. For this reason, as we construed the opinion, it was held there could be no conviction on another trial. It did not appear further evidence could not be adduced on another trial in that case. This court held such discharge could not be sustained on the ground of want of jurisdiction because of a void warrant.

The Court of Appeals had gone further in the Campbell case and held the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction, and defendant was due the affirmative charge. This court disapproved the discharge of the accused merely because of insufficiency of the evidence adduced on the first trial. A discharge should follow only when the ends of justice appear to so demand. The Court of Appeals is vested with the judicial power to pass upon such question in the light of the whole record, subject to the general supervisory powers of this court.

Under the finding of facts, and conclusions of fact, by the Court of Appeals in the instant case, the discharge of the accused should not be disturbed.

The Code Sections above, and authorities cited in the opinion of the Court of Appeals, sustain the judgment discharging the accused.

Writ denied.

GARDNER, C.J., and BROWN, FOSTER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Ex parte Anthony
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • February 16, 1990
    .... Page 565. 565 So.2d 565. Ex parte Nathaniel McRae ANTHONY. (Re State of Alabama. v. Nathaniel McRae Anthony). 88-685. Supreme Court of Alabama. Feb. 16, 1990. Rehearing Denied April 6, 1990.         Paul M. ......
  • Jones v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • March 16, 1976
    ...There is no foundation for a judgment of conviction for second degree burglary. Under § 389, supra, as applied in Robison v. State, 240 Ala. 638, 200 So. 629, the ends of justice require us to render a judgment of discharge on Count I of the indictment based on the nol pros in the face of t......
  • Blackwell v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1964
    ...which provides that the supreme court or court of appeals 'must render such judgment as the law demands,' this Court in Robison v. State, 240 Ala. 638, 200 So. 629, in effect held that the Court of Appeals has the power to discharge the defendant but only when the ends of justice so demand ......
  • Flournoy v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 1941
    ...discharging the defendant. Code 1923, § 3259, Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 390; Robison v. State, Ala.App., 200 So. 626, certiorari denied 240 Ala. 638, 200 So. 629. and rendered. ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT