Ruff v. State, 7 Div. 230.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1935
• Docket Number: 7 Div. 230.
• Citation: 159 So. 94,229 Ala. 649
• Parties: RUFF v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

159 So. 94

229 Ala. 649

RUFF v. STATE.

7 Div. 230.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 31, 1935

Appeal from Circuit Court, Clay County; E. P. Gay, Judge.

Blake Ruff was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

A. L Crumpton and C. W. McKay, both of Ashland, for appellant.

A. A Carmichael, Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS Justice.

The appellant was tried in the circuit court upon an indictment charging him with the offense of murder in the first degree.

The defendant, being duly arraigned, had counsel assigned, and pleaded guilty as charged in the indictment. The required orders for venire and service of copies thereof and indictment on defendant were made, and the date for his trial on his plea and under the evidence was duly fixed. On the trial, no question arose or was presented as to venire or on the introduction of evidence; and the evidence shows without dispute the guilt of the defendant of murder in the first degree as charged.

The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree; the bill of exceptions reciting:

"The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty, which verdict is as follows: 'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of murder in first degree and fix his "penalty as" death by electrocution.'

"Whereupon, when the verdict was read by the Court, the court stated to the jury that possibly the verdict was not in the exact form according to the instruction of the Court, in that the word 'penalty' had been used instead of the word 'punishment' and the word 'as' instead of the word 'at' in their verdict.

"Whereupon the Court instructed the jury to retire and write a verdict according to the instruction of the Court in his oral charge.

"Whereupon, Mr. Crumpton, defendant's counsel, objected to the jury retiring to the jury room and making any change in the verdict since the verdict had been read in the presence of the defendant.

"Whereupon, the Court then stated, that since defendant's counsel objected to any further writing of a verdict that said verdict was accepted as same was written, and thereupon the Court discharged the jury."

The motion for a new trial challenged the sufficiency of the verdict and the action of the court in pronouncing judgment thereon.

We have carefully considered the entire record in the cause, and it affirmatively shows the organization of the court, the trial, conviction and sentence of the defendant, and judgment rendered, which are in all respects regular. No errors appear on the record proper; and the bill of exceptions shows the guilt of the defendant as charged and found by the verdict of the jury; and no reversible error intervened on the trial as disclosed by the bill of exceptions.

The verdict rendered is clear and unambiguous, and expresses the finding of the jury (sections 4457-4458, Code), on which the judgment of the court,...