Whaley v. State
| Decision Date | 15 February 1921 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 331 |
| Citation | 17 Ala.App. 661,88 So. 24 |
| Parties | WHALEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; W.L. Martin, Judge.
Cecil Whaley was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law of 1915, and he appeals. Reversed and rendered.
George F. Smoot, of Wetumpka, for appellant.
J.Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The former opinion in this case under date of December 14, 1920, is withdrawn, and the order of affirmance therein rendered is set aside.
This appeal is upon the record proper, without a bill of exceptions, and it is insisted that the complaint or affidavit upon which the defendant was tried is void, and will therefore not support a judgment of conviction.
The complaint charges that defendant did manufacture, sell, etc., "the prohibited liquors and beverages described in section one of the act passed by the Legislature of Alabama and approved January 23, 1915." The framer of the complaint or affidavit no doubt intended that the reference as to the description of the prohibited liquors and beverages should relate to section 1 of the act found on page 1, Acts 1915, which act was never approved at all, but was passed over the veto of the Governor, and was conditioned that it should go into effect at 11 o'clock p.m. on the 30th day of June, 1915, this act was House Bill 5.
The act designated in the complaint or affidavit as having been passed by the Legislature of Alabama and approved January 23, 1915, was House Bill 6, and will be found on pages 8 to 35, inclusive, Acts 1915. Section 1 of this act contains no description of any prohibited liquors or beverages, the qualifying phrase used in the complaint or affidavit therefore renders it void; for by reference to the designated section it will be seen that no prohibited liquors or beverages are described therein, hence the affidavit or complaint charges no offense, and no judgment of conviction can be based thereon.
The statute has perfected a bar to a further prosecution for the acts complained of, and, as the defendant cannot be convicted under the affidavit or complaint as framed, a judgment is here rendered, discharging the defendant from further custody under these proceedings.
Reversed and rendered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. State
... ... the statute of limitations, such fact presents an additional ... reason for the appropriateness of the judgment of reversal ... and rendition entered in this case. Parker v. State, ... 20 Ala.App. 470, 103 So. 76; McCoy v. State, 27 ... Ala.App. 18, 165 So. 263; Whaley v. State, 17 ... Ala.App. 661, 88 So. 24 ... The ... Attorney General urges that in the event of a judgment of ... reversal the case should be remanded for a new judgment by ... the court below sustaining the demurrers and holding the ... defendant to answer a new indictment, or ... ...
-
Myhand v. City of Dothan
... ... Benjamin ... v. City of Montgomery, 16 Ala. App. 653, 81 So. 145, and ... cases cited. This does not apply, however, to cities in this ... state which have a population of as much as 100,000 people ... according to the last federal census. Acts 1915, p. 294, § 7 ... The ... that the evidence offered upon the trial was insufficient to ... sustain the verdict and to support the judgment. Whaley ... v. State, 17 Ala. App. 661, 88 So. 24. This being true, ... the defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge ... requested in writing, and ... ...
-
Parker v. State
... ... barred by the statute of limitations, and as the defendant ... cannot be convicted under the indictment as framed, a ... judgment is here rendered, discharging the defendant from ... further custody under these proceedings. Whaley v ... State, 17 Ala.App. 661, 88 So. 24 ... Reversed ... and ... ...
-
Pate v. State
...of law or matters judicially noticed. Also, § 232, T. 15 dispenses with the former "contrary to the form of the statute." Whaley v. State, 17 Ala.App. 661, 88 So. 24, is not of controlling influence Allen v. State, 33 Ala.App. 70, 30 So.2d 479, encapsulates the pertinent rule thus: '* * * T......