Wells v. State

Decision Date06 June 1906
PartiesWELLS v. STATE.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Appeal from Madison County Court; W. T. Lawler, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

John Wells was convicted of disturbing an assemblage of people met for religious worship, and he appeals. Reversed and rendered.

The defendant was indicted at the February term, 1905, of the Madison circuit court for disturbing an assemblage of people met for a religious worship. The case was returnable to the county court of said Madison county and was there tried. The facts are sufficiently stated, and it is admitted that these are the facts, in the following motion made by defendant "Comes the defendant, John Wells, and moves the court to discharge him from custody for the following reasons: On August 5, 1905, after that a jury had been impaneled and sworn and accepted by both the state and the defendant, and after that the indictment had been read to the jury and the defendant had pleaded not guilty, and after that the evidence had been taken in the cause, attorneys had made their arguments, and the court had charged the jury and directed that they retire to deliberate upon the verdict, the hour of 12:30 having arrived, the court recessed until 2 o'clock. In the meantime the defendant and other persons who were in the courtroom who desired to do so had left the courtroom to get their dinners. The jury came into the courtroom with a verdict, which they sealed in an envelope and handed to the judge, which was by him handed to the clerk. When the verdict was handed to the judge, he instructed the jury not to make known the contents of the verdict, and told them to go to their dinners, and report back at 2 p. m. In a half hour after this the judge handed the verdict to the clerk. The defendant objected and excepted to this conduct of the court. The jury then dispersed. Various ones went to their dinners separately and mingled with the people generally. After court was convened at the hour of 2 o'clock the defendant moved the court by his attorney to discharge him on the ground that he had been acquitted; the jury having been allowed to separate without having returned a verdict into court in his presence." The defendant had not consented for the jury to be discharged in his absence. The court overruled defendant's motion to discharge him, and he duly excepted. After this motion was made, at the suggestion of the solicitor, the court called the jury from the audience as they were not then sitting in the jury box, but were sitting promiscuously with the audience in the courtroom before him, and caused the clerk to take the verdict which had been handed to him quite a while before that and read in their presence. The jury said that that was their verdict and each one of them said he had not talked about the verdict that had been rendered before any one. The defendant objected to this examination of the jury, and the court overruled his objections and permitted the solicitor to prove by the jurors that they had not talked about the verdict that had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht, 34839.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 21, 1949
    ...653, 44 Am.Rep. 743 (perjury); Hill v. State, 118 Ga. 21, 44 S.E. 820 (misdemeanor); State v. Epps, 76 N.C. 55; but, cf. Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 41 So. 630 (operates as acquittal). 3 Chapter 14, s 287. ‘Presence of defendant when prosecution for felony. In a prosecution for a felony t......
  • State v. Utecht
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 21, 1949
    ...Ga. 653, 44 Am.Rep. 743 (perjury); Hill v. State, 118 Ga. 21, 44 S.E. 820 (misdemeanor); State v. Epps, 76 N.C. 55; but, cf. Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 41 So. 630 (operates as 3. Chapter 14, § 287. "Presence of defendant when prosecution for felony. In a prosecution for a felony the defe......
  • Lee v. State, 6 Div. 942.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Appeals
    • March 2, 1943
    ...... acquittal of the defendant. Whitehurst v. State, 3. Ala.App. 88, 57 So. 1026; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325; Cook v. State, 60 Ala. 39, 31 Am.Rep. 31;. Jackson v. State, 102 Ala. 76, 15 So. 351; Hayes. v. State, 107 Ala. 1, 4, 18 So. 172; Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 142, 41 So. 630; Harris v. State, 153 Ala. 19, 49 So. 458. . . The. record must affirmatively show the prisoner's presence at. each successive step in the trial. Young v. State,. 39 Ala. 357; Frost v. State, 225 Ala. 232, 142 So. 427. . . It ......
  • State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • February 21, 1949
    ...653, 44 Am.Rep. 743 (perjury); Hill v. State, 118 Ga. 21, 44 S.E. 820 (misdemeanor); State v. Epps, 76 N.C. 55; but, cf. Wells v. State, 147 Ala. 140, 41 So. 630 (operates as acquittal). [3] Chapter 14, s 287. 'Presence of defendant when prosecution for felony. In a prosecution for a felony......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT