Sandwich v. State
| Decision Date | 04 June 1903 |
| Citation | 34 So. 620,137 Ala. 85 |
| Parties | SANDWICH v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.
William Sandwich was convicted of gaming, and appeals. Reversed.
Hill & Hill, for appellant.
Chas G. Brown, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was tried and convicted on an indictment for gaming, and from that judgment of conviction he prosecutes this appeal. The defendant claimed immunity from prosecution for the offense charged under the provisions of section 4805 of the Criminal Code. He sought to avail himself of the provisions of this statute first by motion to quash the indictment and then by plea, the motion having been overruled. The protection guarantied in section 4805 to the witness testifying as to gaming against being prosecuted for any offense of gaming so testified to by him when being called to answer generally as to any such offense, within his knowledge, committed within the 12 months next preceding without first being specially interrogated as to any particular offense, is a question for the determination of the court, and the motion to quash the indictment was the proper practice. Sparrenberger v. State, 53 Ala 481, 25 Am. Rep. 643. On the hearing of the motion it was shown without contradiction that the defendant was summoned before the grand jury that preferred the indictment to give evidence of any violation of the laws against gaming, and was required to answer generally as to any such offense, within his knowledge, committed within the 12 months next preceding without having been first specially interrogated as to any particular offense; that he testified to a game played with cards, in which witness himself had participated; that the indictment against him was for the particular game testified to by him as a witness before the grand jury, and was found against him after he had given his testimony before the grand jury. This evidence clearly put the defendant within the protection of the provision of the statute against a prosecution, and on it, undisputed as it was, the motion to quash the indictment should have been sustained. The fact that another witness had been called before the grand jury before the defendant, and that such other witness had testified to the same game, implicating the defendant in it, would not deprive the defendant of the immunity afforded by the statute upon the theory that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doyle v. Wilcockson
...which was suggested by her testimony before the grand jury. And in this connection, we have to say that we do not overlook Sandwich v. State, 137 Ala. 85 (34 So. 620). We not find it to be at all controlling. In effect, it holds that, though a witness testifies to the commission of an act u......
-
Ex parte Montgomery
... ... a proceeding to review the conviction and sentence of ... petitioner an attorney at law by the Board of Commissioners ... of the Alabama State Bar by whom he was suspended from the ... practice for two years, and that he then be automatically ... reinstated. He was found guilty of the ... participation in the game of which he gave evidence before ... the grand jury. Sandwich v. State, 137 Ala. 85, 34 ... So. 620. The offense for which he was immune from prosecution ... was some violation of the gaming and lottery laws ... ...
-
Grace v. State
...abatement presents an issue to be tried by the jury, while a motion to quash presents an issue to be decided by the court. Sandwich v. State, 137 Ala. 85, 34 So. 620. Therefore, if the court by its ruling has put the to an issue before the jury, when he should have decided it himself, it wo......
-
Doyle v. Wilcockson
...of which was suggested by her testimony before the grand jury. And in this connection we have to say that we do not overlook Sandwich v. State, 137 Ala. 85, 34 South. 620. We do not find it to be at all controlling. In effect, it holds that though a witness testifies to the commission of an......