Woodley v. State
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
| Writing for the Court | COLEMAN, J. |
| Citation | 15 So. 820,103 Ala. 23 |
| Decision Date | 07 June 1894 |
| Parties | WOODLEY ET AL. v. STATE. |
15 So. 820
103 Ala. 23
WOODLEY ET AL.
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Alabama
June 7, 1894
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; Thomas M. Arrington, Judge.
Joe, Aleck, and Wilson Woodley were convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeal. Affirmed.
The appellants, Joe, Aleck, and Wilson Woodley, were indicted, jointly with one Jim Calloway, for the murder of E. H. Grant. Upon the arraignment of the defendants the said Calloway pleaded guilty and the defendants not guilty. Thereupon a day was fixed for the trial, and an order was made by the court for 100 jurors to be summoned to try the cases; the same list of names being served on each of the defendants in this case and on Calloway. On the day set for trial the said Calloway was tried first and alone, and these defendants, when their case was called, objected to going to trial without Calloway. This objection was overruled, and the defendants duly excepted. Before the drawing of the jury commenced, the defendants moved the court to quash the venire and for a venire de novo, upon the grounds: First, that if the plea of guilty made by Calloway worked a severance as to him, then each of the defendants was entitled to a separate venire from that of Calloway; and, second, that the venire served upon them contained the names of the jurors who had tried the said Calloway. The court overruled the motion to quash the venire, and the defendants separately excepted. After the conviction and sentence of the said Calloway, the state introduced him as a witness. The defendants objected to the said Calloway being examined as a witness, upon the ground that there had been no legal severance, he having been jointly indicted with them; but the court overruled this objection, and each of the defendants duly excepted. The testimony of the said Calloway, which was corroborated by other testimony, showed that he killed Mr. Grant as the result of a conspiracy entered into by him and the defendants. The defendants were convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to be hanged.
John G. Winter, for appellant.
Wm. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.
COLEMAN, J.
The appellants were convicted of murder in the first degree, and sentenced to suffer death. With but two or three exceptions, the questions reserved for review were considered and disposed of in the case of Ezell v. State, 15 So. 818, which decision was rendered during the present week of court. The record shows that one Jim Calloway was indicted jointly with appellants; that, when the prisoners were arraigned, Jim Calloway entered a plea of guilty, and the appellants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Charley v. State, 1 Div. 132
...v. State, 104 Ala. 1, 16 So. 523; Wright v. State, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55, 42 Am.Rep. 95; Palmer v. State, 15 Ala.App. 262, 73 So. 139; Ex parte Palmer (denying writ of certio......
-
Lockett v. State, 6 Div. 41
...against him in another trial, and gave the option to decline. We find no error in the court's rulings in this regard. Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820; South v. State, 86 Ala. 617, 6 So. 52; Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 23, 45 Am.Rep. 72; Code, § 5636. The predicate laid for the int......
-
Ex parte Johnson
...to testify on behalf of the State against the defendant. Lockett v. State, 218 Ala. 40, 43, 117 So. 457, 459 (1928); Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820 (1894). Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-223, "When two or more defendants are jointly indicted, the court may, at any time before the evidenc......
-
Wright v. State
...having escaped. The court did not err in ordering a severance and proceeding with the trial of the defendant. Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55. Evidence having been offered by the state tending to show acts of adulterous intercourse within 12 months bef......
-
Charley v. State, 1 Div. 132
...v. State, 104 Ala. 1, 16 So. 523; Wright v. State, 108 Ala. 60, 18 So. 941; Burkett v. State, 154 Ala. 19, 45 So. 682; Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55, 42 Am.Rep. 95; Palmer v. State, 15 Ala.App. 262, 73 So. 139; Ex parte Palmer (denying writ of certio......
-
Lockett v. State, 6 Div. 41
...against him in another trial, and gave the option to decline. We find no error in the court's rulings in this regard. Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820; South v. State, 86 Ala. 617, 6 So. 52; Henderson v. State, 70 Ala. 23, 45 Am.Rep. 72; Code, § 5636. The predicate laid for the int......
-
Ex parte Johnson
...to testify on behalf of the State against the defendant. Lockett v. State, 218 Ala. 40, 43, 117 So. 457, 459 (1928); Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820 (1894). Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-223, "When two or more defendants are jointly indicted, the court may, at any time before the evidenc......
-
Wright v. State
...having escaped. The court did not err in ordering a severance and proceeding with the trial of the defendant. Woodley v. State, 103 Ala. 23, 15 So. 820; Marler v. State, 67 Ala. 55. Evidence having been offered by the state tending to show acts of adulterous intercourse within 12 months bef......