Bowen v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bowen v. State

62 So. 1022, 8 Ala. App. 103, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 132

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 So. 1022 (Bowen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowen v. State, 62 So. 1022, 8 Ala. App. 103, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 132 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J.

— It is the better practice for the presiding judge, in examining the persons who appear in court to serve as jurors in a case that may be punished capitally, to examine them separately on their voir dire examinations touching their qualifications and competency, and not to qualify them in a body, as is shown by the bill of exceptions to have been done in this case;; but at most this could only be considered as an authorized but ill-chosen expedient adopted by the court fon facilitating the trial, for there is no requirement of law that the examinations shall be separately made. The' action of the court in this particular, although shown to be against the objection of the defendant, would not. constitute error that would require a reversal of the judgment appealed from.

No exception is shown by the bill of exceptions to-have been reserved to any ruling of the court on the evidence, and the few correct propositions of law contained in the refused charges (which are not numbered) are fully covered by the numerous given charges. No contention is made by argument or brief that the record contains error, and our examination fails to show any error for which the judgment of the court below should be reversed.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J.

— It is the better practice for the presiding judge, in examining the persons who appear in court to serve as jurors in a case that may be punished capitally, to examine them separately on their voir dire examinations touching their qualifications and competency, and not to qualify them in a body, as is shown by the bill of exceptions to have been done in this case;; but at most this could only be considered as an authorized but ill-chosen expedient adopted by the court fon facilitating the trial, for there is no requirement of law that the examinations shall be separately made. The' action of the court in this particular, although shown to be against the objection of the defendant, would not. constitute error that would require a reversal of the judgment appealed from.

No exception is shown by the bill of exceptions to-have been reserved to any ruling of the court on the evidence, and the few correct propositions of law contained in the refused charges (which are not numbered) are fully covered by the numerous given charges. No contention is made by argument or brief that the record contains error, and our examination fails to show any error for which the judgment of the court below should be reversed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 So. 1022, 8 Ala. App. 103, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-state-alactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack