Young v. State
| Citation | 54 So. 166,170 Ala. 71 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. STATE. |
| Decision Date | 21 December 1910 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; W. W. Pearson, Judge.
Mark Young was convicted of a criminal offense, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Alexander M. Garber, Atty. Gen., for the State.
There is no bill of exceptions in this case, and the record shows that the defendant was convicted under a valid indictment, by a court of competent jurisdiction, and with a lawfully impaneled petit jury, to which the defendant interposed no objection. He was tried at a special term, and we must assume, nothing to the contrary appearing, that the jury trying him was legally drawn, summoned, and impaneled. Nor was any point made in the lower court as to the validity of the indictment, and the organization of the grand jury finding same etc., was properly omitted from the record. Section 6256 of the Code of 1907.
The only point that can possibly be made against the indictment, but which is without merit, is that it was found by a court not authorized by law; that is, that it was found at a special term of court, organized at a time covered for the holding of the regular term, and that such special term was not, therefore, authorized. Section 3249 of the Code of 1907 is very broad as to special terms, and seems to authorize the ordering and convening of same at any time; and the fact that the special term was organized at a period covered by the regular term does not necessarily render the special term unauthorized or invalid. This case is unlike the case of Pope v. State, 51 So. 521. There the record affirmatively showed that the grand jury was not secured under the form of law. Here the record does not show how the grand jury finding this indictment was secured, and under the terms of section 6256 we must presume that it was legally secured.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mullins v. State, 8 Div. 147.
...... the ordering and convening of a special term at any time when. a lawful occasion therefor arises, and the fact that the. special term was organized at a period covered by the regular. term does not necessarily render the special term. unauthorized or invalid. Young v. State, 170 Ala. 71, 54 So. 166. . . The. objection that the court drew the panel from the jury box. less than twenty days before the beginning of the special. session of said court, in violation of section 8617, Code. 1923, is without merit. Fleming v. State, 20 Ala. App. 481, ......
-
Hafley v. State
...jury were properly made and entered. Code, § 3249; Jury Act of 1909, p. 316, § 24; Holland v. State, 162 Ala. 5, 50 So. 215; Young v. State, 170 Ala. 71, 54 So. 166. The judge of the law and equity court had the same in this respect as judges of the circuit courts (Local Acts 1907, p. 193 e......
-
MacMahon v. MacMahon
...... drunkenness." This is the equivalent of averring that he. still is or was addicted to the habit when the bill was. filed. Dolan v. State, 122 Ind. 141, 23 N.E. 761. Nor did the complaint have to set out the details, or specify. the acts of drunkenness, and the demurrers testing this. ......