Winchester v. State
| Decision Date | 13 January 1925 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 534 |
| Citation | 20 Ala.App. 431,102 So. 595 |
| Parties | WINCHESTER v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Fleetwood Rice, Judge.
Will Winchester was convicted of subornation of perjury, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Foster Rice & Foster, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appellant was convicted of subornation of perjury. There were two counts in the indictment, each setting up different facts.
Sections 7541 and 7543 of the Code of 1907 define perjury and subornation of perjury, and for the offense of perjury the form for an indictment is prescribed. Forms 81 and 82 Section 7542 of the Code provides that in an indictment for perjury or subornation of perjury it is sufficient to state "the substance of the proceedings, the name of the court or officer before whom the oath was taken and that such court or officer had authority to administer it, with the necessary allegations of the falsity of the matter on which the perjury is assigned."
The first count followed substantially the language of the statute defining subornation of perjury, and adopted so much of the Code form for perjury (form 81) as was applicable and was sufficient against the demurrer interposed. Walker v State, 96 Ala. 53, 11 So. 401; Barnett v. State, 89 Ala. 165, 7 So. 414; Hicks v. State, 86 Ala. 30, 5 So. 425.
The second count was fatally defective in failing to aver the falsity of the facts sworn to on which perjury was assigned. An indictment for subornation of perjury must state all the essential elements constituting the crime of perjury as well as of subornation of perjury. It should state the substance of the proceedings in which the false testimony was given, the materiality of the testimony, the name of the officer by whom the oath was administered, and that he was authorized by law to administer the oath, the fact sworn to on which perjury is assigned, that the accused corruptly procured the witness to swear falsely, and that the testimony was willfully and corruptly false. Unless the testimony is false it is not the subject of legal perjury. Rivers v. State, 97 Ala. 72, 12 So. 434; Jacobs v. State, 61 Ala. 448; 30 Cyc. par. 8, page 1440; Goolsby v. State, 17 Ala.App. 545, 86 So. 137. The demurrer to the second count should have been sustained.
The verdict of guilt returned by the jury was a general verdict not specifying the count under which the defendant was convicted. The general rule is that where there are two counts in an indictment, one good and the other bad, a general verdict of guilty will be referred to the good count, and the judgment of conviction will not be reversed on account of the defective count. May v. State, 85 Ala. 14, 5 So. 14; Chappell v. State, 52 Ala. 359; Handy v. State, 121 Ala. 13, 25 So. 1023; Farrister v. State, 18 Ala.App. 390, 92 So. 504; Norman v. State, 13 Ala. 337, 69 So. 362. But in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jiles v. State
...... requested by the defendant, though such charges are set out. as a part of the record proper. Paitry v. State, 196. Ala. 598, 72 So. 36; Mack v. State, 201 Ala. 269, 77. So. 683; Sanford v. State, 19 Ala. App. 242, 96 So. 646; Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595; Thomas v. State, 20 Ala. App. 550, 103 So. 479;. Motley v. State, 20 Ala. App. 689, 102 So. 924;. Hallmark v. State, 20 Ala. App. 281, 101 So. 905;. Howard v. State, 20 Ala. App. 399, 102 So. 491. . . There. being no reversible error ......
-
Ikner v. State
...69 So. 1018 (1915) ]. And the material matter sworn to must be false or it is not the subject of legal perjury. Winchester v. State, 20 Ala.App. 431, 102 So. 595 [ (1925) ]." Murry v. State, 367 So.2d 985, 989 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 989 "A statement is 'material,' regard......
-
Murry v. State, 2 Div. 222
...13 Ala.App. 318, 69 So. 351. And the material matter sworn to must be false or it is not the subject of legal perjury. Winchester v. State, 20 Ala.App. 431, 102 So. 595. In meeting the burden of proof to sustain a conviction for perjury, the State must prove the falsity of the testimony of ......
-
Dorgan v. State
...... conviction returned by the jury being a general one, this. verdict will be referred to the good counts (Nos. 1 and 2). 16 C.J., § 2594 (3), p. 1106; Hancock v. State, 14. Ala.App. 91, 71 So. 973; S.C. Rule 45. The status of the. pleading in the pending case and that in Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595, and Pairo v. State, 49 Ala. 25--upon which authorities later. decisions proceeded--is thus distinguished and we hold to the. view that the two last mentioned cases lend support to our. conclusions here. . . Error,. to the prejudice of the ......