Yeldell v. State

• Decision Date: 16 January 1894
• Citation: 14 So. 570,100 Ala. 26
• Parties: YELDELL v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

14 So. 570

100 Ala. 26

YELDELL v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 16, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Butler county; John R. Tyson, Judge.

Finney Yeldell was convicted of assault and battery, and appeals. Affirmed.

J. C Richardson, for appellant.

Wm. L Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

HARALSON J.

1. The defendant was indicted and tried for an assault with intent to murder. He was convicted of an assault and battery and fined five dollars. He asked a charge which had reference alone, to an assault with intent to murder, but we will not consider it, since he was not convicted of this, but of a smaller offense, to the commission of which the charge had no reference.

2. Section 4502 of the Code provides, that "when a fine is assessed, the court may allow the defendant to confess judgment, with good and sufficient sureties, for the fine and costs." The defendant, after he and his sureties had confessed judgment for fine and costs, requested the court by an order to be entered on the docket, to limit the confession as to the costs, to such as had been incurred on behalf of the state. The court refused to make such an order on the docket, but stated he would instruct the clerk, and did so instruct him, to include in the taxation of the costs, only such as had been incurred on behalf of the state. To the refusal of the court to make the order on the docket as requested, the defendant excepted. There was no error here. The confession of the judgment was made in exact accordance with the statute, and it was not incumbent on the court to go any further, and do as the defendant proposed, although it would not have been improper to do so, and really, by so doing, the judgment entry in this respect would have been clearer, and a mistake of a wrong taxation of the costs afterwards, rendered less liable to occur. The judgment entry, however, as made, could include only the costs of the state, and the clerk, without being told, was bound to know that fact, and that any taxation by him of the costs of the defendant, would be illegal. Bowen v. State, (Ala.) 12 So. 809.

3. The only other question presented is, whether the court had the right to limit the argument of the defendant's counsel, as to the time it should occupy. It is stated in the bill of exceptions, that before the argument of the cause began, the presiding judge stated, that he would limit the arguments to 15 minutes on each side. Against this limitation the defendant, by his attorneys, protested, on the grounds, that the court had no right, in a case like this, to put such a limit on the speech of his counsel; that 15 minutes to the side, was an unreasonable limitation, in violation of defendant's constitutional rights; and he demanded that the court should not limit the argument of defendant's counsel to 15 minutes, but allow it without limit as to time. this the court refused to do, and the defendant excepted. After one of the defendant's attorneys had addressed the court and jury for 25 minutes, the judge announced that his time for argument had expired, and the attorney again demanded that he be permitted to continue the argument, which the court refused to allow, and the defendant excepted.

4. The constitution of this state provides (article 1, § 7) "that in all criminal prosecutions the accused has the right to be heard by himself and counsel, or either." The constitutions of most of the states have similar provisions, and the federal constitution provides, that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Article 6, Amendments. In Georgia, in a prosecution for an assault with intent to murder, the court below, against the protest of defendant limited the defendant's counsel to 30 minutes in his argument to the jury. The court allowed him 40 minutes. The defendant was convicted of an assault and battery. On a motion for a new trial, based on these facts, the supreme court held, that the court below committed a grave error. Hunt v. State, 49 Ga. 255. In North Carolina, on a prosecution for murder, the trial...