Ziniman v. State
| Decision Date | 16 April 1914 |
| Docket Number | 620 |
| Citation | 65 So. 56,186 Ala. 9 |
| Parties | ZINIMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Shelby County Court; E.S. Lyman, Judge.
George Ziniman was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Riddle & Ellis, of Columbiana, for appellant.
R.C Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Several indictments charging capital felonies against various persons, including that against defendant in this case, were set for trial during the same week, and the same venire ordered for all of them. On the venire so ordered, and served upon defendant as the statute requires, was this name "Bud M. Brshur," whose occupation was stated to be that of a farmer, and whose residence was stated as being at Dunnavant, B. 18. When this defendant's case came on for trial it was made to appear that in organizing the jury for a case that had been previously tried during the week one Bud M.
Brashier had responded to the name "Bud M. Brshur," the summons having been served on him, that on proof then made to the court that his name was Bud M. Brashier, and not "Bud M. Brshur," and that there was no "Bud M Brshur"' in beat 18, where Bud M. Brashier lived, the court had excused Brashier from further jury service during the week, and this without the knowledge or consent of defendant in this case or his counsel. Upon these facts, which were admitted, defendant predicated a motion to quash the venire and duly excepted to the court's action in overruling his motion.
Section 29 of the Jury Act (Acts Sp.Sess.1909, pp. 305-320) provides "It is hereby expressly declared to be the intent of the Legislature in the enactment of this law, to make the provisions hereof in the relation to the selection, drawing, summoning or impaneling of jurors directory merely and not mandatory." Nevertheless it is clear on inescapable grounds that some of the provisions of the act in respect to the selection, drawing, summoning, and impaneling juries are mandatory. The power of the Legislature to prescribe the interpretation of its own language cannot be doubted. But it has been often noted that interpretation clauses in statutes embarrass rather than assist the courts in their decisions (Endlich, Interp. of Stats. § 365), and that has been found to be the case with the act in question. When the Legislature in this act, along with its general prescription for interpretation, provided specific regulations, which must have been deemed essential to the proper conduct of trials by jury, and which, if they are to have any operation at all, must be made effectual according to the specific language of the act, it so provided that either such specific regulations must be accepted by the courts as mandatory, or the statute as to them must be held to be insensible and of no effect. To illustrate: The act provides that the venire for the trial of a capital felony shall consist of not less than 50 nor more than 100 persons. It could not be held that the judge may fix the venire at any number he pleases less than 50 or more than 100. Or, again: The act provides that from the list of qualified jurors appearing for service the solicitor for the state and the defendant shall strike 1 and 2 names, respectively, and alternately until the list is reduced to a jury of 12. It would be without the power of the trial judge to substitute a different procedure. So this court, following...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brewer v. State
...that has established some provisions to be mandatory, notwithstanding expressed legislative intent to the contrary, see Ziniman v. State, 186 Ala. 9, 65 So. 56 (1914) (requirement that defendant be served with jury list in capital case) (dicta), both the number of jurors drawn and the time ......
- Burns v. State
- Leith v. State
-
Doss v. State
...were not drawn in the presence of the officers designated by law] as the only cause which can be assigned in such cases." In Zininam v. State, 186 Ala. 9, 65 So. 56, in speaking section 29 of the 1909 Jury Law, which is now codified as section 8636 of the Code 1923, the Supreme Court, throu......