Clayton v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Clayton v. State

78 So. 462, 16 Ala. App. 432, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 114

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 12, 1918

Docket4 Div. 506. [fn*]

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 78 So. 462 (Clayton 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

Clayton v. State, 78 So. 462, 16 Ala. App. 432, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 114 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

[1] There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and the only error insisted upon is that the judgment rendered fails to show affirmatively that a plea of not guilty was entered by the defendants, or that, standing mute, such plea was entered for them by the court. The judgment recites:

“Comes the state by its solicitor and the defendants in person and by attorney, and issue being joined,” etc. (The remaining part of the judgment is in all things regular.)

Defendants contend that the judgment must affirmatively -show that the plea of not guilty was interposed either by the defendants or by the court for them. Upon a casual reading of the second headnote in Childs v. State, 97 Ala. 49, 12 South. 441, it would appear that this contention was -sustained; 'but the opinion upon which this headnote is based states a very different rule. The opinion says:

“The record of the pleadings and judgment entry in the case affirmatively shows that the defendant was tried and convicted, as charged in the indictment, without having pleaded to the indictment, and affirmatively shows that the plea of ‘not guilty’ was not entered by the court for him, and that thei'e was no issue joined.” (Italics ours.)

To the same effect is the decision in Jackson’s Case, 91 Ala. 55, 8 South. 773, 24 Am. St. Rep. 860; and in Powell v. Henry & Co., 96 Ala. 414, 11 South. 311, McClellan, J., says: “The record * * * does not show that issue was ever joined,” etc.

[2] The judgment in the instant ease does affirmatively show that issue was joined. “It is an invincible presumption of the law,” *433 says 15 R. C. L. p. 875, “that a judicial tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction, has acted impartially and honestly, and the integrity and value of the judicial system, as an institution for the administration of public and private justice, rests largely upon this principle. Akin to this is the important one that a presumption lies in favor of the regularity of the proceedings of any court of general jurisdiction.” The judgment, reciting that “issue was joined,” is conclusive to show that the proper plea was interposed. Eslava v. Elliott, 5 Ala. 264, 39 Am. Dec. 326; Waller v. Campbell, 25 Ala. 544.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

[1] There is no bill of exceptions in the record, and the only error insisted upon is that the judgment rendered fails to show affirmatively that a plea of not guilty was entered by the defendants, or that, standing mute, such plea was entered for them by the court. The judgment recites:

“Comes the state by its solicitor and the defendants in person and by attorney, and issue being joined,” etc. (The remaining part of the judgment is in all things regular.)

Defendants contend that the judgment must affirmatively -show that the plea of not guilty was interposed either by the defendants or by the court for them. Upon a casual reading of the second headnote in Childs v. State, 97 Ala. 49, 12 South. 441, it would appear that this contention was -sustained; 'but the opinion upon which this headnote is based states a very different rule. The opinion says:

“The record of the pleadings and judgment entry in the case affirmatively shows that the defendant was tried and convicted, as charged in the indictment, without having pleaded to the indictment, and affirmatively shows that the plea of ‘not guilty’ was not entered by the court for him, and that thei'e was no issue joined.” (Italics ours.)

To the same effect is the decision in Jackson’s Case, 91 Ala. 55, 8 South. 773, 24 Am. St. Rep. 860; and in Powell v. Henry & Co., 96 Ala. 414, 11 South. 311, McClellan, J., says: “The record * * * does not show that issue was ever joined,” etc.

[2] The judgment in the instant ease does affirmatively show that issue was joined. “It is an invincible presumption of the law,” *433 says 15 R. C. L. p. 875, “that a judicial tribunal, acting within its jurisdiction, has acted impartially and honestly, and the integrity and value of the judicial system, as an institution for the administration of public and private justice, rests largely upon this principle. Akin to this is the important one that a presumption lies in favor of the regularity of the proceedings of any court of general jurisdiction.” The judgment, reciting that “issue was joined,” is conclusive to show that the proper plea was interposed. Eslava v. Elliott, 5 Ala. 264, 39 Am. Dec. 326; Waller v. Campbell, 25 Ala. 544.

There is no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 462, 16 Ala. App. 432, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-state-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack