State v. Burchfield, 6 Div. 388

• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: BRICKEN, P.J.
• Citation: 117 So. 485,22 Ala.App. 502
• Parties: STATE v. BURCHFIELD.
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 388
• Decision Date: 19 June 1928

117 So. 485

22 Ala.App. 502

STATE
v.
BURCHFIELD.

6 Div. 388

Court of Appeals of Alabama

June 19, 1928

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J.C.B. Gwin, Judge.

Bart Burchfield was prosecuted for a violation of Gen.Acts 1927, p. 493. From a judgment declaring said act invalid, the State appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Conforming to answer to certified question, 117 So. 483.

Charlie C. McCall, Atty. Gen., and Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and W.K. Brown and Smyer & Smyer, all of Birmingham, for the State.

[22 Ala.App. 503] Goodwyn & Ross, of Bessemer, and C.C. & Morton Nesmith, of Birmingham, for appellee.

BRICKEN, P.J.

This prosecution was for an alleged violation of the Stock Law Act, approved August 30, 1927. General Acts 1927, p. 493.

The affidavit upon which the prosecution is based appears sufficient as to form and substance. Before entering upon the trial, the defendant below, appellee here, interposed demurrers to the complaint or affidavit. There were nineteen grounds of demurrer, all of which were of the same import and raised the question of the validity of the act, supra; the insistence being that said act is unconstitutional for the numerous reasons stated. The court below upheld the contention of defendant, sustained the demurrers to the affidavit and warrant, thereby holding said act was violative of several constitutional provisions. Judgment was rendered accordingly, from which the state took an appeal to this court under provisions of section 3239 of the Code 1923.

The constitutionality of the act in question being the only point of decision involved upon this appeal, this court, in pursuance to the statute, certified the question to the Supreme Court, who, in response to said certification by an opinion hereinafter set out, sustained said act and in effect held that no provision thereof is offensive to the organic law. That decision is conclusive of this appeal, and results in the reversal of the judgment entered in the court below. No further discussion by this court is necessary. The opinion rendered by the Supreme Court in this case is as follows:

"Certified to this court pursuant to section 7322 of the Code by the presiding judge of the Court of Appeals

"The appeal is by the state from a judgment sustaining demurrers to an affidavit and warrant charging violation of the Stock Law, etc., and holding the law unconstitutional Gen.Acts 1927, p. 493

"It is asserted that the act violates (1) section 45 of the Constitution; (2) violates subdivision 23 of section 104 of the Constitution, if it is a local law; (3) and the penalties sought to be imposed are uncertain.

"Considering the objection to the act in inverse order to that as presented, the same is not unconstitutional and void on the ground that the penalties provided are uncertain and undeterminable. Scott v. State, 152 Ala. 63, 44 So. 544; State v. Goldstein, 207 Ala. 569, 582, 583, 93 So. 308. They are certain and determinable. Miller v. Strahl, 239 U.S. 426, 36 S.Ct. 147, 60 L.Ed. 364; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 29 S.Ct. 220, 53 L.Ed. 417...