Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 08 January 1892 |
| Citation | 10 So. 432,94 Ala. 74 |
| Parties | THOMAS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; T. M. ARRINGTON, Judge.
William Thomas was indicted for murder in the first degree, was convicted, and sentenced to be hanged. He now appeals. Affirmed.
The day set for his trial was August 14, 1891; and the defendant was duly served with a list of 75 names, which list contained the names of 36 persons who were purported to have been summoned on the regular jury for the week commencing August 10, 1891. On that day-August 14, 1891-the court, at the request of the solicitor, set said case for trial on the following Monday August 17, 1891, a day of a different week, and for which week commencing August 17, 1891, a different venire had been summoned than for the week commencing August 10 1891. When the case was called for trial on Monday, August 17, 1891, the defendant moved to quash the venire on the ground "that the its served on him did not contain the names of those summoned on the regular jury for the week commencing August 17th." The court overruled this motion, and allowed the defendant to select a jury from the names contained in the list served on him, and to this action the defendant duly excepted.
Edwin F. Jones, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The order made for summoning the venire in this case strictly conformed to the statute. The order setting the case for trial was made July 29, 1891. The day set for the trial was August 14, 1891 This was during a week subsequent to the one in which the order was made, and consequently "the jurors drawn and summoned for such week"-the week during which the trial was to take place-were, by the statute, made a part of the venire from which the jury was to be organized. Sess. Acts 1886-87, § 11, (Crim. Code 1886, p. 134, in note. [1] ) The order conforming to the very letter of the statute, we do not think the city court erred in requiring the jury to be selected from that venire. The fact, or accident, by which the trial was not entered upon until a day during the succeeding week, could not properly render it necessary that a new order should be made, setting another day for the trial, or that a new venire should be summoned or served on the defendant. Had such course been pursued, possibly it would have been regualr; but the defendant cannot complain that it was not done. There was no error in overruling defendant's motion to quash the venire.
The motion to quash the venire, based on the ground stated above, being overruled, the organization of the jury and the trial were entered upon, without further preliminary objection. After the trial was concluded, and the jury had returned a verdict of guilty, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment. The ground of the motion did not appear on the record, but arose as follows: Under the order to the sheriff to place on the venire the names "of the jurors drawn and summoned for the week" of the trial, that officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. State
...that the error found in the Jackson and Bailey Appeals in respect of the special venire was present in this cause. In Thomas' Case, 94 Ala. 74, 75, 10 So. 432, treating question (aside from the provisions of section 29 of the Act before quoted) identical in principle, if not in fact, with t......
-
Gregory v. State
... ... case, this court has uniformly held this is not a ground to ... quash. Barnes v. State, 134 Ala. 36, 32 So. 670; ... Caddell v. State, 129 Ala. 63, 30 So. 76; ... Daughdrill v. State, 113 Ala. 7, 21 So. 378. In ... Barnes' Case it was pointed out that the cases of Thomas, ... 94 Ala. 74, 10 So. 432, and Ryan, 100 Ala. 108, 14 So. 766, ... relied upon by appellant, have no application, for the reason ... that in those cases the persons not summoned were regular ... petit jurors for the week in which the case was set for ... trial. Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 73, ... ...
-
Carwile v. State
...the motion to quash the venire. Ryan v. State, 100 Ala. 105, 14 So. 766; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284; Thomas v. State, 94 Ala. 74, 10 So. 432. trial court did not err in overruling defendant's objection to witness Wright, "How came you to tell me about this conversation?" The ......
-
Huguley v. State
...case does not disclose that objection in any form was made to the action of the trial court in drawing the jury. See, also, Thomas v. State, 94 Ala. 74, 10 So. 432, where it said: "Parties must not be permitted to speculate on the chances of a favorable verdict, and, failing, then fall back......