Stewart v. State
| Citation | 245 Ala. 511,17 So.2d 871 |
| Decision Date | 11 May 1944 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 224. |
| Parties | STEWART v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Wm Conway, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried for murder in the first degree, convicted for murder in the second degree, and sentenced to the penitentiary for thirty-three years.
Before the trial was entered upon, defendant moved to quash the venire on the ground that several persons who had been summoned for jury service for the week in which defendant was being tried had been excused by the judge organizing the juries for that week, without the consent of defendant, and they did not then appear on the venire for the week. The court overruled the motion, and defendant excepted.
We need not inquire into the question of whether such a motion properly presents defendant's contention in the light of our case of Irwin v. State, 220 Ala. 160, 124 So 410, for we do not think the defendant had a right to be present and be heard in respect to the excuses of jurors presented to the judge organizing the jury for that week in view of the law which has application to Jefferson County in the trial of such cases; nor that the principle of Stinson v. State, 223 Ala. 327, 135 So.
571 and Smallwood v. State, 235 Ala. 425, 179 So. 217, is here controlling.
Under the statutes which provide for a special venire in capital cases to include those "drawn on the regular juries [of] the week," we held in those cases that the court could not prior to the date of trial excuse any of them who had been thus drawn for service that week. Section 8644, Code of 1923. In that respect section 63, Title 30, Code of 1940 is not materially different. But by section 7 of the Act of September 13, 1935 (page 1010), section 226, Title 62, Code of 1940, no special venire is required in Jefferson County for the trial of capital felonies, but the venire shall be twenty-four competent jurors obtained from the regular juries in the court. The effect and constitutionality of that Act has been sustained. Dixon v. State, 27 Ala.App. 64, 167 So. 340, certiorari denied 232 Ala. 150, 167 So. 349.
Under that set up, the defendant in a capital case in Jefferson County must be content with twenty-four competent jurors regularly organized for jury service that week, and has no right to have included others who were drawn for jury service but excused by the judge by authority of law. Under sections 4 and 5, Title 30, Code of 1940, the court in organizing a jury for the week has a discretion to excuse veniremen from such service.
There was no error in respect to the ruling on said motion.
In qualifying the jurors to obtain twenty-four who were competent the court correctly allowed the State to challenge those for cause who stated that they would not convict on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dothan v. Holloway
... ... Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Jack M. Curtis and Leura J. Garrett, Asst. Attys. Gen., amici curiae for State of Ala ... Sam LeMaistre, Jr., President and Chairman of the Executive Committee, and Joseph M. Carlton, Jr., Executive Director ... Over a century ago, in City of Selma v. Stewart, 67 Ala. 338, 340 (1880), this Court held that a defendant had waived the right to challenge any defects in an affidavit unless he objected to them ... ...
-
Burns v. State
...of a defendant in a capital case in Jefferson County and in other counties of the state are well stated in the case of Stewart v. State of Alabama, Ala.Sup., 17 So.2d 871, although in that case no constitutional question involved. "We need not inquire into the question of whether such a mot......
-
Smith v. State
... ... "This interpretation of jurisdiction, as it relates to the issue presented in Dison, is consistent with the view expressed in a number of decisions issued by this Court and the Court of Appeals. Over a century ago, in City of Selma v. Stewart, 67 Ala. 338, 340 (1880), this Court held that a defendant had waived the right to challenge any defects in an affidavit unless he objected to them in the trial court. See also, Blankenshire v. State, 70 Ala. 10, 11 (1881). In the case of Wells v. State, 245 Ala. 510, 17 So.2d 878 (1944), the ... ...
-
Stewart v. State
...145, 150 (Ala.Cr.App.), aff'd, 377 So.2d 159 (Ala.1979), rev'd on other grounds, 405 So.2d 702 (Ala.1981). See also Stewart v. State, 245 Ala. 511, 17 So.2d 871 (1944). A prospective juror may correctly be excused because of the illness of a family member. Nolen v. State, 35 Ala.App. 249, 4......