White v. State, 6 Div. 904.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtTHOMAS, J.
PartiesWHITE v. STATE.
Decision Date31 May 1923
Docket Number6 Div. 904.

96 So. 709

209 Ala. 546

WHITE
v.
STATE.

6 Div. 904.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 31, 1923


Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Ben D. Turner, Judge.

Charlie White, alias Sweet, was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed. [96 So. 710]

Charges 1 and 3, refused to defendant, read: [96 So. 711] "1. I charge you, that if you believe from the evidence that the defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty and was assaulted by the deceased in a way that was manifestly felonious in its purpose, the defendant then would be under no obligation to retreat, but could, if necessary, stand his ground and kill his adversary.

"3. If you believe that the defendant was free from fault in bringing on the difficulty and that the defendant was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the time the fatal shot was fired, or if not actually in such danger, that the circumstances surrounding him were such as to create in the mind of a reasonable man the honest belief that he was in such danger, you must acquit him."

M. H. Murphy, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

THOMAS, J.

The indictment and trial were for murder in the first degree. There was conviction of murder in the second degree, and the punishment fixed by the jury was that defendant suffer imprisonment in penitentiary "for 25 years."

The appeal is upon the record, which contains a waiver by defendant, and his counsel, of a special venire, and waives "the service of a certified copy of the indictment, and *** of a copy of the regular and special venire upon him," and "requests and agrees that said cause be set for trial as early as may be convenient." Such are the questions presented for decision by the appeal.

It is provided by section 6256 of the Code of 1907, as amended (Gen. Acts 1915, p. 708), that the order of the court for a special venire or fixing the day of the trial of the defendant shall not be set out in the transcript, unless some question thereupon was raised before the trial court, and, in the absence of any such question, such proceedings are upon appeal presumed to have been regular and legal. Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 638, 89 So. 84; Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55.

It is recited that the defendant waived the drawing and subp naing of a special venire of jurymen for the trial of this cause. The defendant had the right to waive a special venire under section 7264 of the Code of 1907, and necessarily thereby waived the service of a copy of the special venire upon him, for the reason that there was no special venire. Patterson v. State, 202 Ala. 65, 66, 79 So. 459; Burton v. State, 194 Ala. 2, 69 So. 913; Washington v. State, 188 Ala. 101, 66 So. 34; McSwean v. State, 175 Ala. 21, 57 So. 732.

The defendant also waived the service of a copy of the indictment. Section 6 of the Constitution provides that the defendant has the right "to demand the nature and cause of the accusation and to have a copy thereof." General Acts 1919, § 32, p. 1041, also provide that the court must cause a list of the names of all the jurors drawn for the week in which the trial is set, and those drawn as provided in that section, "together with a copy of the indictment," to be served on the defendant by the sheriff, etc.

In the case of Mitchell v. State, 58 Ala. 417, the court held that in the absence of any objection in the court below, or anything in its records showing the contrary, it will be presumed that a copy of the indictment and list of jurors were duly served upon the prisoner before trial, as required by law. In Shelton v. State, 73 Ala. 5, it was also held that the record on appeal in a capital case need not show affirmatively that the prisoner was served, as required by the statute, with a copy of the indictment and venire; but, in the absence of any objection in the primary court on that ground, such service will be presumed to have been properly and regularly made.

The record shows that defendant waived arraignment, but the judgment entry shows affirmatively that he was arraigned. The record shows that defendant waived a copy of the indictment; but for aught that appears in the record the court made the order requiring a copy of the indictment to be served on the defendant notwithstanding his waiver, just as the defendant was arraigned notwithstanding the waiver of arraignment. Under the ruling in Mitchell v. State, supra, and Shelton v. State, supra, it will be presumed that an order was regularly made, requiring that a copy of the indictment be served on the defendant.

The proper or usual place for an order for a copy of the indictment to be served upon the defendant is in the order fixing the day for trial, and that fixing a special venire for the case. Inasmuch as in the Acts of 1915, page 708, the order for the special venire, or fixing the day for the trial is not required to be set out in the transcript, and it is customary for the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • Rose v. Magro, 6 Div. 468.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 24 Octubre 1929
    ...existing necessity to take assailant's life as the preventive alternative must be shown; and that defendant so believed. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709; Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 218 Ala. 468, 118 So. 798; Drummond v. Drummond, supra. That is to say, the averment that intest......
  • Oden-Elliott Lumber Co. v. Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co., 6 Div. 748.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 29 Noviembre 1923
    ...to mean one thing, and one side contends it to mean another"-when applied to the evidence, presented no reversible error. White v. State. 209 Ala. 546, 550, 96 So. 709, 713. Reversed and remanded. ANDERSON, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur. On Rehearing. THOMAS, J. The question......
  • Robinson v. State, 1 Div. 163.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 28 Enero 1943
    ...guilty, and waived the drawing of a special venire for the trial of this cause. McSwean v. State, 175 Ala. 21, 57 So. 732; White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709. In his opening statement to the jury the solicitor for the State said: "I expect to show by the evidence that just prior to th......
  • Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 12 Abril 1934
    ...Acts 1909, p. 317, § 32), need not appear of record, unless some question is raised thereon before the trial court. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 638, 89 So. 48; Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Jil......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • Rose v. Magro, 6 Div. 468.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 24 Octubre 1929
    ...existing necessity to take assailant's life as the preventive alternative must be shown; and that defendant so believed. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709; Union Indemnity Co. v. Webster, 218 Ala. 468, 118 So. 798; Drummond v. Drummond, supra. That is to say, the averment that intest......
  • Oden-Elliott Lumber Co. v. Daniel-Gaddis Lumber Co., 6 Div. 748.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 29 Noviembre 1923
    ...to mean one thing, and one side contends it to mean another"-when applied to the evidence, presented no reversible error. White v. State. 209 Ala. 546, 550, 96 So. 709, 713. Reversed and remanded. ANDERSON, C.J., and SOMERVILLE and BOULDIN, JJ., concur. On Rehearing. THOMAS, J. The question......
  • Robinson v. State, 1 Div. 163.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 28 Enero 1943
    ...guilty, and waived the drawing of a special venire for the trial of this cause. McSwean v. State, 175 Ala. 21, 57 So. 732; White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709. In his opening statement to the jury the solicitor for the State said: "I expect to show by the evidence that just prior to th......
  • Scott v. State, 8 Div. 540.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • 12 Abril 1934
    ...Acts 1909, p. 317, § 32), need not appear of record, unless some question is raised thereon before the trial court. White v. State, 209 Ala. 546, 96 So. 709; Charley v. State, 204 Ala. 687, 87 So. 177; Whittle v. State, 205 Ala. 638, 89 So. 48; Johnson v. State, 205 Ala. 665, 89 So. 55; Jil......
  • 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