Walker v. State, 5 Div. 741
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | McCLELLAN, J. McCLELLAN, J. |
| Citation | 85 So. 787,204 Ala. 474 |
| Decision Date | 14 May 1920 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 741 |
| Parties | WALKER v. STATE. |
85 So. 787
204 Ala. 474
WALKER
v.
STATE.
5 Div. 741
Supreme Court of Alabama
May 14, 1920
On Rehearing, June 30, 1920
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; F. Loyd Tate, Judge.
Duff Walker was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Sayre, Thomas, and Brown, JJ., dissenting in part.
Smoot & Morrow, of Wetumpka, for appellant.
J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State.
McCLELLAN, J.
The appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The indictment was returned on October 15, 1919. The amendment, by the act approved September 29, 1919 (Gen.Acts, pp. 1039-1042), of the jury law approved August 31, 1909 (Acts, pp. 305, 317, et seq.) was the law governing the special venire for appellant's trial. The act of 1909 required a special venire to contain the names of the regular jurors "drawn and summoned" for the week during which the capital case was to be tried. The amendatory [85 So. 788.] act of 1919 omitted "summoned" from the provision indicated, thereby providing that the special venire should contain the regular jurors "drawn" for the week in which the trial was to be had. In the appellant's case the court fixed 65 as the number for the special venire from which the jury should be selected to try appellant. Of the regular jurors drawn for the week set for appellant's trial, 11 were not "summoned," the total number of such jurors "drawn and summoned" being 39. Erroneously proceeding under the pertinent provisions of the cited act of 1909, the court ordered that 26 special jurors should be drawn to complete the number (65) fixed for the special venire for the trial of appellant. The appellant questioned the regularity of the special venire so provided; but the trial court overruled his severally raised objections, and proceeded with his trial notwithstanding his protest. The special venire should have been composed of the regular jurors drawn (regardless of the number not summoned) for that week, and such number of special jurors as were necessary to complete the number fixed in the order, viz. 65. This was error; but it was without prejudice to appellant. Rudolph v. State, 172 Ala. 379, 55 So. 610. The number fixed in the order for a special venire was within the limits prescribed by the law. The result of the court's action, though erroneous, was to secure to appellant a greater number (within 65) from which to select the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
...court as to same is not for review, since the order and drawing of the special venire was without prejudice to defendant. Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. ......
-
Whittle v. State, 3 Div. 462
...Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Clayton v. State, 78 So. 462; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387. However, in the order of May 18, 1920, on defendant's first arraignment, we find the r......
-
Morris v. Corona Coal Co., 6 Div. 443
...Code 1923, § 9509; Callaway v. Gay, 145 Ala. 524, 39 So. 277; Barney Coal Co. v. Hyche, 197 Ala. 228, 72 So. 433; Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Louis Pizitz D.G. Co. v. Cusimano, 206 Ala. 689, 91 So. 779. The cross-examination of plaintiff as a witness was free from error assig......
-
Spooney v. State, 4 Div. 358
...and was at best an arbitrary substitution by the court of such list for the names provided for by the statute. In Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787, wherein the trial court had inadvertently followed the provisions of the Act of August 31, 1909 (Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. 305), instead......
-
Anderson v. State, 6 Div. 481.
...court as to same is not for review, since the order and drawing of the special venire was without prejudice to defendant. Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Davis v. State, 205 Ala. 673, 88 So. 868; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. ......
-
Whittle v. State, 3 Div. 462
...Hardley v. State, 202 Ala. 24, 79 So. 362; Clayton v. State, 78 So. 462; Anderson v. State, 204 Ala. 476, 85 So. 789; Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; McPherson v. State, 198 Ala. 5, 73 So. 387. However, in the order of May 18, 1920, on defendant's first arraignment, we find the r......
-
Morris v. Corona Coal Co., 6 Div. 443
...Code 1923, § 9509; Callaway v. Gay, 145 Ala. 524, 39 So. 277; Barney Coal Co. v. Hyche, 197 Ala. 228, 72 So. 433; Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787; Louis Pizitz D.G. Co. v. Cusimano, 206 Ala. 689, 91 So. 779. The cross-examination of plaintiff as a witness was free from error assig......
-
Spooney v. State, 4 Div. 358
...and was at best an arbitrary substitution by the court of such list for the names provided for by the statute. In Walker v. State, 204 Ala. 474, 85 So. 787, wherein the trial court had inadvertently followed the provisions of the Act of August 31, 1909 (Acts Sp. Sess. 1909, p. 305), instead......