Brooms v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Brooms v. State

72 So. 691, 15 Ala. App. 118, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 128

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedAugust 1, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 72 So. 691 (Brooms 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

Brooms v. State, 72 So. 691, 15 Ala. App. 118, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 128 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J. —

The defendant was tried under an indictment containing but a single count, charging in the usual form that the defendant was guilty of a violation of the prohibition laws in having “sold, offered for sale, kept-for sale, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors.” But one conviction could have been had under the single count in the indictment charging different violations of prohibition laws in the alternative (Moss v. State, 3 Ala. App. 189, 58 South. 62), and the trial court was in error in refusing and overruling the defendant’s motion, made at the conclusion of the introduction of the evidence, to require the state to elect under which alternative charge in the indictment it would proceed and ask for a conviction. If the indictment had charged the several offenses in separate counts, there would be no room for the contention that the state should be required to elect; and while the different offenses of this kindred nature may properly be joined, charging offenses of the same character in the alternative in-a single count (Code 1907, § 7151), the doctrine of election may nevertheless be invoked in behalf of the defendant by timely motion to require the state to put the defendant on notice as to which one of the several alternative charges it seeks a conviction under. The indictment covers any manner of disposition by which prohibited liquors may pass from one person to another unlawfully (Arrington v. State, 13 Ala. App. 359, 69 South. 385, Ex parte Arrington, 195 Ala. 694, 70 South. 1012) ; and the defendant had the right, upon motion duly made after the introduction of the state’s evidence, to be apprised with certainty of the particular crime he was called upon to meet and defend. The same question was 'gone into and fully discussed in the majority opinion of this court in the recent case of Barefield.—See Ba refield v. State, 14 Ala. App. 638, 72 South. 293, and authorities there cited.

Other rulings of the court seem to be free from error. For the error in refusing the defendant’s motion to require the State to elect for which offense it would prosecute, the case must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PELHAM, P. J. —

The defendant was tried under an indictment containing but a single count, charging in the usual form that the defendant was guilty of a violation of the prohibition laws in having “sold, offered for sale, kept-for sale, or otherwise disposed of spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors.” But one conviction could have been had under the single count in the indictment charging different violations of prohibition laws in the alternative (Moss v. State, 3 Ala. App. 189, 58 South. 62), and the trial court was in error in refusing and overruling the defendant’s motion, made at the conclusion of the introduction of the evidence, to require the state to elect under which alternative charge in the indictment it would proceed and ask for a conviction. If the indictment had charged the several offenses in separate counts, there would be no room for the contention that the state should be required to elect; and while the different offenses of this kindred nature may properly be joined, charging offenses of the same character in the alternative in-a single count (Code 1907, § 7151), the doctrine of election may nevertheless be invoked in behalf of the defendant by timely motion to require the state to put the defendant on notice as to which one of the several alternative charges it seeks a conviction under. The indictment covers any manner of disposition by which prohibited liquors may pass from one person to another unlawfully (Arrington v. State, 13 Ala. App. 359, 69 South. 385, Ex parte Arrington, 195 Ala. 694, 70 South. 1012) ; and the defendant had the right, upon motion duly made after the introduction of the state’s evidence, to be apprised with certainty of the particular crime he was called upon to meet and defend. The same question was 'gone into and fully discussed in the majority opinion of this court in the recent case of Barefield.—See Ba refield v. State, 14 Ala. App. 638, 72 South. 293, and authorities there cited.

Other rulings of the court seem to be free from error. For the error in refusing the defendant’s motion to require the State to elect for which offense it would prosecute, the case must be reversed.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 691, 15 Ala. App. 118, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooms-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack