Stinson v. State
| Decision Date | 02 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 433. |
| Citation | 190 So. 303,28 Ala.App. 559 |
| Parties | STINSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1939.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; W. L. Parks, Judge.
Curt (alias Curtis, alias C. T.) Stinson was convicted of carrying a concealed pistol, and he appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Stinson v. State, 4 Div. 99, 190 So. 305.
Yarbrough & Beck, of Enterprise, for appellant.
Thos. S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and Prime F Osborn, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The indictment in this case charged that the defendant "carried a pistol concealed about his person or on premises not his own, or under his control." This indictment followed Form 32, Code of 1923, Section 4556, and was sufficient to charge a violation of the law against carrying concealed weapons under Section 3487 of the Code of 1923.
Since the adoption of the Code of 1923, the Legislature has enacted a law, to-wit: "To regulate the sale, transfer and possession of certain types of firearms; to provide for the licensing of dealers and owners of such firearms; to fix rules of evidence in the Courts of this State in prosecutions for violations of this Act; to prescribe penalties for the violations of any provision herein and to make uniform the law with reference thereto." This Act was approved April 6, 1936, Extra Session of the Legislature, 1936, page 51.
The short title of the Act, hereinabove quoted, as provided by Section 19 thereof, may be cited as the "Uniform Firearms Act."
This Act prescribes punishments and penalties for violations of any of the provisions of the Act, and in Section 22 thereof it is provided: "This Act is intended as an entire revision of the subject matter contained herein and all laws or parts of laws inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed."
It would appear, therefore, that Section 3487 of the Code of 1923 has been repealed and Form 32, of Section 4556, supra ceases to be the form prescribed in charging a defendant with a violation of Section 5 of the Acts of the Legislature Extra Session of 1936, page 52.
The inhibition against the possession of firearms is now contained in Section 5 of the Acts of the Legislature, Extra Session of 1936, page 52, which reads as follows: "No person shall carry a pistol in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a license therefor as hereinafter provided." It will be seen that this is an entire change of the former law on the subject, and that the Form hereinabove set out is not applicable to prosecution for violations of the Act known as the "Uniform Firearms Act." It is true that the Legislature has the power to prescribe the form and scope of indictments, but it will be observed, the form of indictment in this case has not been prescribed by the Legislature for a violation of the present existing law on the subject. In such case, the indictment is sufficient where it follows the wording of the Statute alleged to have been violated with sufficient certainty to protect the defendant against the jeopardy of the second trial of the same offense. Langford v. State, 45 Ala. 26. It is not required that an indictment shall set up the proof, but merely to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tulley v. City of Jacksonville
...they conflict, § 175 would prevail, it being the later statute and being a complete revision of the subject matter. Stinson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 559, 190 So. 303 (1939). Aside from the question of whether § 175 pro tanto repealed § 161, it is abundantly clear that § 161 never covered the s......
-
Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. State, 3 Div. 316
...sufficient certainty to protect the defendant against jeopardy of a second trial, and permit him to prepare his defense. Stinson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 559, 190 So. 303, certiorari denied 238 Ala. 272, 190 So. 305; McQueen v. State, 31 Ala.App. 101, 13 So.2d 59, certiorari denied 244 Ala. 25......
-
Philyaw v. City of Birmingham
...sufficient certainty to protect the defendant against jeopardy of a second trial, and permit him to prepare his defense. Stinson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 559, 190 So. 303, certiorari denied 238 Ala. 272, 190 So. 305; McQueen v. State, 31 Ala.App. 101, 13 So.2d 59, certiorari denied 244 Ala. 25......
-
Braxton v. State, 8 Div. 968
...they conflict, § 175 would prevail, it being the later statute and being a complete revision of the subject matter. Stinson v. State, 28 Ala.App. 559, 190 So. 303 (1939). Aside from the question of whether § 175 pro tanto repealed § 161, it is abundantly clear that § 161 never covered the s......