State v. Esdale
Decision Date | 20 April 1950 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 976 |
Citation | 253 Ala. 550,45 So.2d 865 |
Parties | STATE v. ESDALE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
John T. Batten, Birmingham, for petitioner.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Emmett Perry, Solicitor, Birmingham, opposed.
The question presented in this case is whether or not the sureties on the bail bond of an escapee and fugitive from justice are entitled to a reduction of the amount of the conditional judgment for the penalty of the bond to such sum as will pay the costs of court incurred in the prosecution and conviction of the defendant and her application for probation without her appearance to abide the judgment of the court. The following facts appear from the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
The defendant Gladys Jackson was indicted in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County for murder. She appeared in court and entered a plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and on such plea was adjudged guilty of said offense and her punishment fixed by the jury at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years. She thereupon applied for probation under the provisions of Chapter 2, Title 42, § 19 et seq., Code of 1940, and was by order of the court entered on the minutes with the consent of her bail, allowed to remain in their custody pending her application for probation. She failed to appear to abide the judgment of the court but made default and on motion of the solicitor a conditional judgment was rendered against her and her sureties for the amount of the penalty of the bond ($500.00), with writ of scire facias to issue to defendant and bail to appear on the 17th of November, 1947, and show cause why the judgment should not be made absolute.
The writ of scire facias was issued and service thereof accepted by the sureties but was returned as to the defendant Gladys Jackson 'not found in Jefferson County.' The sheriff's return was dated April 2, 1947, and returned and filed with the clerk April 8, 1947.
On the date of the hearing Mrs. Willie Esdale, one of the sureties, pleaded to the scire facias as the complaint two pleas in substance--the general issue--denying the allegations thereof. She also suggested the death of Jones, the other surety. This procedure has been approved. State v. Parker, 83 Ala. 269, 3 So. 552; State v. Hinson, 4 Ala. 671. The trial court on an informal hearing reduced the amount of the conditional judgment to an amount sufficient to cover the costs and fees incurred in the prosecution and made the same final.
The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered judgment, making the judgment final for the full penalty of the bond against the surety appearing and discontinued as to the deceased surety. We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals. Counsel for petitioner seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals states in brief: In short, she became a fugitive from justice. Rule 10, Supreme Court Practice, Code 1940, p. 1008, Tit. 7; Bankson v. Accident & Casualty Co. of Winterthur Switzerland, 244 Ala. 371, 13 So.2d 398. She did not appear and no reason was shown for her nonappearance and no effort was shown on the part of the sureties to rearrest her and deliver her into the hands of the authorities to await the judgment of the court.
The statute, now § 217, Title 15, Code of 1940, which has been in the several codes two years short of a century, was interpreted by the court speaking through Brickell, C. J., in the following language: * * *.' Hammons v. State, 59 Ala. 164, 170, 31 Am.Rep. 13.
This interpretation has been adhered to by the courts through the years. The statute has been readopted in the several codes since without change and this interpretation was reaffirmed in Crosby's case, infra, in which the defendant was an escapee and fugitive from justice. It was there stated:
'The sureties, when the obligation of bail is assumed, become in law the jailers of their principal. Cain v. State, 55 Ala. 170; Bearden v. State, 89 Ala. 21, 7 So. 755; 3 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, (2d Ed.), 653. 'The undertaking of bail, binds the parties thereto, jointly and severally, for the appearance of the defendant, on the first day of the court, from day to day of such term, and from day to day of each term thereafter, until he is discharged by law.' Code [of 1886], § 4427 [Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 207]; and, 'Bail may at any time before they are finally discharged, exonerate themselves by surrendering the defendant.' Code [of 1886], § 4429 [Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 209]. Being the jailers of their principal, of his own choosing, the spirit of the obligation of the sureties is, that they will as effectually secure the appearance of the defendant, and put him as much under the power of the court, as if he were in the custody of the law. The recognizance is binding on the distinct obligations, that the principal shall appear at the term of the court designated, to answer the charge against him, to abide the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shine v. State
...any time, to arrest and surrender him again To the custody of the law.' State v. Esdale, 35 Ala.App. 27, 45 So.2d 861; cert. den. 253 Ala. 550, 45 So.2d 865. 'Surrender of the accused by bail should generally be made to the sheriff or deputy sheriff of the county where the case is pending, ......
-
People v. Glumb
...the production of the principal nor prevent the forfeiture of bond. State v. Crosby, 114 Ala. 11, 22 So. 110 (1897); State v. Esdale, 253 Ala. 550, 45 So.2d 865 (1950); Havis v. State, 62 Ark. 500, 37 S.W. 957 (1896); Dunlap v. State, 66 Ark. 105, 49 S.W. 349 (1899); Los Angeles County v. M......
-
Ex parte Hutchinson
...trial court conditioned the benefits it sought to provide on the payment of court costs', citing in support the case of State v. Esdale, 253 Ala. 550, 552, 45 So.2d 865. We are constrained to hold that the amendment of the judgment related back to the time of the original judgment; that pet......
-
Bowers v. State
...of the discretionary powers conferred on the circuit courts of Alabama. Wray v. State, 472 So.2d 1119 (Ala.1985); State v. Esdale, 253 Ala. 550, 45 So.2d 865 (1950). See also Creps v. State, 94 Nev. 351, 581 P.2d 842, 848 (1978). Our analysis will focus on the language and background of §§ ......