Bruner v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bruner v. State

91 So. 2d 223, 38 Ala. App. 558, 1956 Ala. App. LEXIS 285, 1956 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 104

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 19, 1956

Docket2 Div. 904

StatusPublished

This text of 91 So. 2d 223 (Bruner 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

Bruner v. State, 91 So. 2d 223, 38 Ala. App. 558, 1956 Ala. App. LEXIS 285, 1956 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 104 (Ala. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PRICE, Judge.

From a judgment of conviction rendered on a plea of guilty in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, to an indictment charging, omitting the formal parts, that appellant, “kept, exhibited, or was interested or concerned in keeping or exhibiting, a gaming table for gaming,” this appeal is prosecuted.

Counsel for appellant insists in brief that the indictment is so defective as not to support the judgment of conviction because it fails to aver that the gaming table alleged to have been kept by defendant was “not regularly licensed under the laws of this State,” and that it is the duty of this court to notice such alleged defect, although no objection was taken to the indictment in the trial court.

The indictment follows the form prescribed by the Code, Form No. 68, Sec. 259, Tit. 15, Code 1940. In Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 3 So. 711, 713, the court decided adversely to appellant’s contention in these words: “This form requires no averment that the table kept was not one licensed to be kept under the laws of the state. If such was the fact it was mere matter of defense. Even in those cases where the forms of indictment are required to allege the non-existence of such excepted case, it does not devolve on the state to show that the defendant had no license, but on the defendant to show affirmatively that he had. Porter v. State, 58 Ala. 66.”

The judgment below is ordered affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

PRICE, Judge.

From a judgment of conviction rendered on a plea of guilty in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, to an indictment charging, omitting the formal parts, that appellant, “kept, exhibited, or was interested or concerned in keeping or exhibiting, a gaming table for gaming,” this appeal is prosecuted.

Counsel for appellant insists in brief that the indictment is so defective as not to support the judgment of conviction because it fails to aver that the gaming table alleged to have been kept by defendant was “not regularly licensed under the laws of this State,” and that it is the duty of this court to notice such alleged defect, although no objection was taken to the indictment in the trial court.

The indictment follows the form prescribed by the Code, Form No. 68, Sec. 259, Tit. 15, Code 1940. In Bibb v. State, 83 Ala. 84, 3 So. 711, 713, the court decided adversely to appellant’s contention in these words: “This form requires no averment that the table kept was not one licensed to be kept under the laws of the state. If such was the fact it was mere matter of defense. Even in those cases where the forms of indictment are required to allege the non-existence of such excepted case, it does not devolve on the state to show that the defendant had no license, but on the defendant to show affirmatively that he had. Porter v. State, 58 Ala. 66.”

The judgment below is ordered affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 So. 2d 223, 38 Ala. App. 558, 1956 Ala. App. LEXIS 285, 1956 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bruner-v-state-alactapp-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack