Whitley v. State
| Decision Date | 03 February 1910 |
| Citation | 52 So. 203,166 Ala. 42 |
| Parties | WHITLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1910.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Winston County; J. J. Ray, Judge.
Eliza Whitley was convicted of an offense, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Curtis & Blanton and M. L. Leith, for appellant.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., and Thomas W. Martin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The transcript of the record in this case shows no valid indictment. There is no indorsement on the indictment, as required by section 7300 of the Code of 1907, to wit, "A true bill," signed by the foreman of the grand jury. Until an indictment is so indorsed, there is no valid indictment. Mose v. State, 35 Ala. 425, 426; Winston v. State, 52 Ala. 420.
No valid indictment having been shown, it is useless to consider the other rulings of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Dothan v. Holloway
...jurisdiction but it did render the indictment invalid to the extent that it would not support the judgment of conviction. Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203, Tit. 30, § 89, Code 1940, and cases cited in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in this case. We have not checked ev......
-
Pruitt v. State
...... State, 35 Miss. 210; Fitzcox v. State, 52 Miss. 923; Jackson v. State, 55 Miss. 530; Cochran v. Commonwealth, 275 S.W. 810, 210 Ky. 332; Bowilvey v. Commonwealth, 19 S.W. 1086, 230 Ky. 387; Banks v. State, 13 Ala.App. 41, 69 So. 242; Layton v. State, 124 So. 406; Whitley v. State, 52 So. 203; Winston v. State, 52 Ala. 420; State v. Bay, 148 La. 559, 87 So. 294; State v. Morrison, 30 La. Ann. 817; State v. Logan, 104. La. 254, 28 So. 912; State v. Wilson, 126 La. 664,. 52 So. 981. . . Grand. Jurors must be "elected," and the indictment ......
-
Roan v. State
...... was according to the statute. Spigener v. State, 62. Ala. 383; Williams v. State, 150 Ala. 84, 43 So. 182. This provision is mandatory. Wesley v. State,. 52 Ala. 182; Ex parte Winston, 52 Ala. 419; Mose v. State, 35 Ala. 421; McKee v. State, 82 Ala. 32,. 2 So. 451; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Collins v. State, 23 Ala. App. 104, 121 So. 451; Layton v. State, 23 Ala. App. 297, 124 So. 406;. Benson v. State, 68 Ala. 544; sections 4524 et seq.,. 8682, Code. The variance presented by the agreed statement of. facts and motion, and the ruling of the ......
-
State v. Heft
...in which the opposite conclusion is announced. See, for example, Nomaque v. People, Breese (1 Ill.) 145, 12 Am. Dec. 157;Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 South. 203;State v. Logan, 104 La. 254, 28 South. 912. Cases holding that a motion to quash on this ground should be sustained are, of c......