Sims v. State

• Decision Date: 02 April 1912
• Parties: SIMS v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

58 So. 379

176 Ala. 14

SIMS v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 2, 1912

On Rehearing, April 25, 1912.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bibb County; B. M. Miller, Judge.

John Sims was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Henry P. White, of Centreville, for appellant.

R. C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W. L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ANDERSON J.

The second count of the indictment charges that the defendant killed the deceased "by an explosion of carbonite, or other explosive substance of like kind or character. A further or better description of same is to the grand jury unknown." The plain meaning of the indictment is that the defendant caused or produced the explosion which caused or resulted in the death of the deceased. Nor was the indictment defective and subject to demurrer for charging that the explosive was carbonite or other explosive substance of like kind or character, a further or better description being unknown. King v. State, 137 Ala. 47, 34 So 683; Smith v. State, 142 Ala. 14, 39 So. 329; sections 7144-7149 of the Code of 1907. There was no error in overruling the defendant's demurrer to the second count of the indictment.

There was no error in refusing to quash the venire because of a mistake in the name of one of the jurors, or for any of the other grounds set up in the motion to quash. Acts 1909, p 320.

There was no error in refusing the general charge requested by the defendant. The rulings upon the evidence have been carefully considered and are free from reversible error, and it would be but a rehash of elementary rules of evidence, as well as a needless incumbrance of the books, to discuss the same in this opinion.

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed. Friday, May 17, 1912, is fixed as the day for the execution of the death sentence.

DOWDELL, C.J., and SIMPSON, SAYRE, and SOMERVILLE, JJ., concur. McCLELLAN and MAYFIELD, JJ., not sitting.

On Rehearing.

ANDERSON J.

The point made upon the venire in this case is so different from the one upon which the case of Jackson v. State, 55 So. 118, was reversed, that we did not deem a differentiation necessary; but counsel, upon application for rehearing, so earnestly invoke said case and those citing same, that we will amplify the decision of the point made in the instant case. The fact that the list of regular jurors contained the name of B. L. Edwards, and there was no such man, but B. L. Edmonds was summoned, did not affect the validity of the order of the court. The sheriff's return showed that 43 regular jurors had been summoned, and there was nothing in said return to indicate that there was no...