Askew v. State

60 So. 455, 6 Ala. App. 22, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 24
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided December 17, 1912·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

WALKER, P. J.

The ruling on the defendant’s motion to quash the indictment cannot be reviewed, as the record does not set out the motion or otherwise disclose the grounds of it. — McQueen v. State, 138 Ala. 63, 65 South. 39; Lacey v. State, 154 Ala. 65, 45 South. 680.

The court was not in error in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment. That motion undertook to present objections to the indictment on grounds going to the formation of the grand jury which found it. This is permitted to be done only by plea in abatement. — Section 23, Jury Law (Acts Special Session 1909, p. 315) ; Thornton v. State, 4 Ala. App. 205, 59 South. 234.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Askew v. State, 60 So. 455, 6 Ala. App. 22, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 24 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

60 So. 455 (Askew v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Baldwin
456 So. 2d 129 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1984)
Baldwin v. State
456 So. 2d 117 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1983)
Brown v. State
338 So. 2d 1050 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Jones v. State
276 So. 2d 647 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Lambert v. State
266 So. 2d 812 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1972)
Parsons v. State
38 So. 2d 209 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1948)
Denham v. State
93 So. 43 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)
Shiver v. State
69 So. 238 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)
Rector v. State
66 So. 857 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Moore v. State
64 So. 520 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Hammock v. State
62 So. 322 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)