Ware v. State
Decision Date | 17 December 1914 |
Docket Number | 755 |
Citation | 12 Ala.App. 101,67 So. 763 |
Parties | WARE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1915
Appeal from Criminal Court, Jefferson County; William E. Fort Judge.
Thompson Ware was convicted of robbery, sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, and he appeals. Affirmed.
The facts sufficiently appear. The oral charge of the court set out on page 60 of the record is as follows:
Evidence may be offered tending to show flight of a defendant, and, when it is offered by the state, it may be considered by the jury in connection with the other evidence in the case. In the first place, where evidence is offered tending to show defendant's flight, that he went away from the scene of an alleged offense, it would be for the jury to say was it a flight as a matter of fact. You would have to determine from the evidence whether it was a flight or not, and then you would further consider such evidence in the light of all the other evidence in the case, including any explanation or statement which may be offered by defendant of the alleged flight, and whether it was a reasonable explanation or not, and all the other evidence in the case, giving each part of it such weight as you think it entitled to receive.
The oral charge on page 59 of the record is as follows:
It is the law of Alabama in felony cases, and by felony cases the law means an offense against the criminal law which is punishable capitally or by imprisonment in the penitentiary so in felony cases all parties who are concerned in the commission of the felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the felony, or aid and abet in its commission, are held to be equally responsible; so that whether a party commits by himself the entire act which constitutes a felony, or if he is concerned with another in its commission, if he aids another in his commission, if he assists another in its commission by word or deed, either by words of encouragement, assistance, or support, or by actions giving encouragement, assistance, or support, either party under these circumstances would, in the eyes of the law, be held to be equally responsible; that is, so far as the personal guilt or innocence is concerned. The question of punishment is one which is always to be fixed by the jury entirely within their own discretion.
The following charges were refused defendant:
Erle Pettus, of Birmingham, for appellant.
R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and W.L. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was charged with robbery, an offense punishable capitally, and was convicted and given a sentence of 15 years.
The bill of exceptions contains the following statement with respect to the organization of the petit jury for the trial, to wit:
And then, after reciting, among other things, that "the juror was absent without excuse, without leave of the court, and without the consent of defendant," and that "the defendant moved to quash the venire on the ground of the absence of the juror," and that the motion was overruled, and that defendant excepted, the bill of exceptions continues:
"The court then ordered the name of said juror, Palmer, to be stricken from the list of jurors which had been at the time of the trial furnished the defendant for the purpose of selecting a jury; and the name of the said juror, Palmer, was so stricken from the list after the same had been furnished to the defendant to strike the jury, and after the cause had been peremptorily called for trial; and the name of the juror was not stricken by the solicitor for the state, nor by the defendant or his attorneys, but was thus stricken off by order of the court because said juror did not answer when his name was called, but appeared to be absent without excuse, and was reported to have left the city without leave of court; and the defendant then and there duly objected and excepted," etc., to the action of the court in so ordering the striking of the name of the juror and in forcing defendant to trial.
Our jury law (Gen. and Loc.Acts 1909, p. 305) clearly relieves the action of the court, if otherwise it would have been erroneous, of any error, in that, in sections 17 and 32 thereof, it is expressly provided that:
"If the sheriff fails to summon any jurors, or if any person summoned fails or refuses to attend the trial, *** none, or all of these grounds shall be sufficient to quash the venire, or continue the cause."
The juror here, though it does appear that he did attend the other trials that had been had in the court on the several days before defendant was tried, "failed to attend defendant's trial." While it is true that the statement made to the court over the telephone by the person at the juror's office to the effect that the juror had left the state was, since not sworn to, mere hearsay, and could furnish no legal basis, therefore, for finding such to be the fact, yet it was not necessary for the court, in order to proceed legally to the trial without the juror, to find that the juror had left the state. It is, as seen, entirely sufficient to this end that the juror "fails to attend the trial," which fact may be satisfactorily inferred from the failure of the juror to answer when, as here, his name is duly called in the court and at the door of the court. Even before the statute cited, the court was not bound to send for a juror, summoned in a capital case, who fails to answer when his name is called, although it be shown that the juror resides in the city where the court is held and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grace v. State
...between averment and proof." 115 Ala. at 86, 22 So. at 567. An exception to the above rule, however, is stated in Ware v. State, 12 Ala.App. 101, 67 So. 763 (1914), as "[Y]et, this rule is subject to the qualification that, if the fact alleged to have been unknown was not, in truth, a mater......
-
Minton v. State
... ... State, 133 Ala. 109, 32 So. 64; Brown v. State, ... 120 Ala. 342, 25 So. 182; McAlpine v. State, 117 Ala ... 93, 23 So. 130; Newell v. State, 115 Ala. 54, 22 So ... 572; Burton v. State, 107 Ala. 108, 18 So. 284; ... Ragsdale v. State, 12 Ala. App. 1, 67 So. 783; ... Ware v. State, 12 Ala. App. 101, 67 So. 763; ... Fortner v. State, 12 Ala. App. 179, 67 So. 720; ... Wise v. State, 11 Ala. App. 72, 66 So. 128; Barr ... v. State, 7 Ala. App. 96, 61 So. 40; Turner v. State, ... 4 Ala. App. 100, 58 So. 116; Henley v. State, 3 Ala ... App. 215, 58 So. 96 ... ...
-
Wright v. People
... ... not shift the burden of proof ... Turning ... to the cases cited as authority for the opinion in the McRae ... case, in Weber v. State, 2 Okl.Cr. 329, 101 P. 355, ... a conviction for selling intoxicating liquor was reversed ... because of a similar instruction. Rushing v ... Both the above cases support the pronouncement in the McRae ... case. In further search we find that in Ware v ... State, 12 Ala.App. 101, 67 So. 763, a tendered ... instruction was held properly rejected because it asserts ... that, if the jury have ... ...
-
State v. Newman
...does not go to the extent of showing that the offense proved is not the offense charged is immaterial.'") (quoting Ware v. State, 12 Ala. App. 101, 111, 67 So. 763 (1914)). 9. Our case law illustrates the same analytical approach. See State v. Delaney, 160 Or.App. 559, 567, 984 P.2d 282, re......