Stehl v. State, 8 Div. 273
| Decision Date | 19 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 273 |
| Parties | Joseph Eugene STEHL v. STATE of Alabama. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
L. Bruce Ables, Huntsville, for appellant.
MacDonald Gallion, Atty. Gen., and Marlin Mooneyham, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant, an indigent, represented in the trial court, and here, conscientiously and diligently, by appointed counsel, was indicted by the grand jury of Madison County and there convicted in the circuit court of burglary in the first degree. The conviction was for burglary in the nighttime of an occupied dwelling house.
The indictment is deficient, in that it fails to allege the name of the owner or the person in possession of the alleged burglarized property, or to negate the ownership and possession of defendant. Wilson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 127, 22 So.2d 600, cert. den. 247 Ala. 84, 22 So.2d 601. But the deficiency was not challenged by demurrer or questioned by appropriate pleading. Under such circumstances we will not review the indictment. Such challenge will be available to defendant on reversal and remand of this cause.
The occupant of the dwelling, alleged to have been burglarized, testified that so far as she knew all of the windows and doors were closed and locked. A police officer, called to the scene at the time of the alleged burglary along with other police officers, testified that when he arrived he went to a side door that was open, and went in through the open door. The officers testified that they found the defendant under a bed in one of the rooms of the house. There was no evidence that any of the doors or windows were broken open, and no evidence of any keys or burglary tools found on the defendant.
Requested written charge No. 8 for the defendant was refused, and was not covered by the oral charge of the trial court, nor by given charges for the defendant. The charge reads as follows:
'The Court charges the Jury that Defendant would not be guilty, even though he were in the house, if he entered through an open door or window without further opening such door or window.'
The indictment charges that the defendant 'did, in the nighttime, * * * break into and enter an inhabited dwelling, to-wit: * * * against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.'
In Scott v. State, 22 Ala.App. 380, 115 So. 853(7), the identical charge (as No. 8, supra) was refused in a burglary charge, as here. The refusal was held error to reverse and remand.
Entering a house...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. State, 6 Div. 418
...challenged by demurrer or questioned by appropriate plea in the lower court the indictment will not be reviewed on appeal. Stehl v. State, 283 Ala. 22, 214 So.2d 299; Ray v. State, 25 Ala.App. 262, 145 So. 325; Ex parte State (State v. Collins), 200 Ala. 503, 76 So. 445; Hornsby v. State, 9......
-
Stringer v. State
...failed to file a proper and timely challenge, and no error can thus be attributed to the trial court in this regard. Stehl v. State, 283 Ala. 22, 214 So.2d 299 (1968). III The district attorney called himself as the State's last witness. He was examined by an assistant district attorney. He......
-
Childress v. City of Huntsville, 8 Div. 93
...raised only by pre-trial motion, A.R.Crim.P. Temp 16.2(a). Under these circumstances, we will not review the complaint. Stehl v. State, 283 Ala. 22, 214 So.2d 299 (1968). Appellant's final contention, that Alabama's implied consent law § 32-5-192, Code of Alabama 1975, requires that an indi......
-
Taylor v. State, 6 Div. 997
...in possession of alleged burglarized property, or to negate defendant's ownership or possession thereof, is defective. Stehl v. State, 283 Ala. 22, 214 So.2d 299; Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 So. 54; Wilson v. State, 32 Ala.App. 127, 22 So.2d 600, cert. denied, 247 Ala. 84, 22 So.2d 601;......