Stoudenmire v. State

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DENSON, J.
• Citation: Stoudenmire v. State, 40 So. 48, 145 Ala. 677 (Ala. 1906)
• Decision Date: 18 January 1906
• Parties: STOUDENMIRE v. STATE.

40 So. 48

145 Ala. 677

STOUDENMIRE v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 18, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Autauga County; S. L. Brewer, Judge.

"Not officially reported."

Will Stoudenmire was convicted of a crime, and appeals. Affirmed.

Guy Rice, for appellant.

Massey Wilson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

DENSON J.

The defendant objected to going to trial on the ground that neither he nor his counsel had been served with a sufficient copy of the indictment and venire. There was no pretense on the part of the defendant in the court below that the copy of the venire served did not contain a perfect list of the names of the jurors for his trial. The whole purpose of the statutory provision (section 5273 of the Code of 1896) is that the defendant shall have seasonable notice of the names of the persons from whom the jury for his trial is to be selected. "When this sole end of the law has been attained by placing before the defendant the names of such persons, it is not conceivable that he could be injured by the absence of technical authentication of the list, but, to the contrary, it is clear that he has not been prejudiced thereby." The defendant's contention with respect to supposed defects in the copy of the venire, if it were conceded that such defects existed, is concluded by previous decisions of this court. Sanders' Case, 131 Ala. 1, 31 So. 564; Ford's Case, 129 Ala. 16, 30 So. 27.

No discrepancies were pointed out with respect to the copy of the indictment.

The granting or refusal of an application for a continuance is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its action thereon is not revisable by this court, unless it is made clearly to appear that there has been an abuse of such discretion. Cunningham's Case, 117 Ala. 59, 23 So. 693; Walker's Case, 117 Ala. 85, 23 So. 670; Huskey's Case, 129 Ala. 94, 29 So. 838; Stevens' Case, 138 Ala 71, 34 So. 1007.

If it be conceded that the defendant was diligent in having subp nas issued for his witnesses, we cannot hold that there was any abuse of discretion with respect to the court's action in overruling the application for the continuance, as the court required the state to admit showings as to what defendant's absent witnesses would prove as a condition of its going to trial. Huskey's Case, 129 Ala. 94, 29 So 838.

The bill of exceptions does not set out the evidence, nor any of its tendencies. Therefore we cannot...