Cleghorn v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cleghorn v. State

116 So. 510, 22 Ala. App. 439, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 123

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1928

Docket4 Div. 383.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 116 So. 510 (Cleghorn 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

Cleghorn v. State, 116 So. 510, 22 Ala. App. 439, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 123 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant, after trial 'by jury and conviction of the offense of illegally transporting prohibited liquors, made a motion to have the record corrected to show that he was tried before a jury consisting of but eleven men. At the hearing of this motion it was admitted that appellant, by his own consent, was put to trial before a jury, the number of whom were but eleven. The trial court denied his motion to correct the record, but he excepted to this action of the *440 court as shown by the bill' of exceptions, and the facts mentioned being shown'in the judgment overruling his motion to correct the record now brings the case here by writ of error.

This seems to present the ' question, of whether or not a'verdict of conviction rendered by eleven jurors is vaiid, properly to us for decision. Ex parte Riddle, 255 U. S. 450, 41 S. Ct. 370, 65 L. Ed. 725. The same question, though, seems to have been already answered by the Supreme Court. The third headnote in the report of the case of Bell v. State, 44 Ala. 393, which seems to find support in the text' of the opinion in the ease, is as • follows:

“In a criminal case, a verdict rendered by eleven jurors is invalid, notwithstanding the consent of the defendant and the Solicitor. Neither the-prosecuting officer nor defendant has authority to consent to such a change in the tribunal.”

We have been unable to find where this holding has been changed by any of the later decisions of the Supreme Court. True, certain statutory provisions for trial before cert'áih inferior tribunals, dispensing altogether with juries, have been upheld, but always preserving to defendants .the right to a jury trial, and never sanctioning any jury trial which did not provide for the common-law jury of- twelve. Collins v. State, 88 Ala. 212, 7 So. 260. In other words, where a trial by jury is provided for and had, it nmst be before a “common-law jury of twelve men.” Collins v. State, supra.

The writ of error is awarded, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause remanded. •

Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant, after trial 'by jury and conviction of the offense of illegally transporting prohibited liquors, made a motion to have the record corrected to show that he was tried before a jury consisting of but eleven men. At the hearing of this motion it was admitted that appellant, by his own consent, was put to trial before a jury, the number of whom were but eleven. The trial court denied his motion to correct the record, but he excepted to this action of the *440 court as shown by the bill' of exceptions, and the facts mentioned being shown'in the judgment overruling his motion to correct the record now brings the case here by writ of error.

This seems to present the ' question, of whether or not a'verdict of conviction rendered by eleven jurors is vaiid, properly to us for decision. Ex parte Riddle, 255 U. S. 450, 41 S. Ct. 370, 65 L. Ed. 725. The same question, though, seems to have been already answered by the Supreme Court. The third headnote in the report of the case of Bell v. State, 44 Ala. 393, which seems to find support in the text' of the opinion in the ease, is as • follows:

“In a criminal case, a verdict rendered by eleven jurors is invalid, notwithstanding the consent of the defendant and the Solicitor. Neither the-prosecuting officer nor defendant has authority to consent to such a change in the tribunal.”

We have been unable to find where this holding has been changed by any of the later decisions of the Supreme Court. True, certain statutory provisions for trial before cert'áih inferior tribunals, dispensing altogether with juries, have been upheld, but always preserving to defendants .the right to a jury trial, and never sanctioning any jury trial which did not provide for the common-law jury of- twelve. Collins v. State, 88 Ala. 212, 7 So. 260. In other words, where a trial by jury is provided for and had, it nmst be before a “common-law jury of twelve men.” Collins v. State, supra.

The writ of error is awarded, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause remanded. •

Writ awarded; reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 So. 510, 22 Ala. App. 439, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleghorn-v-state-alactapp-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack