Cleveland v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cleveland v. State

96 So. 730, 19 Ala. App. 260, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 129

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 8, 1923

Docket3 Div. 442.

StatusPublished

This text of 96 So. 730 (Cleveland 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

Cleveland v. State, 96 So. 730, 19 Ala. App. 260, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 129 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The defendant was indicted, tric-d, and convicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder. He was duly sentenced to an indeterminate term Of imprisonment of from six to eight years in the state penitentiary.

The principal insistence of error relates to the manner in which the grand jury anu petit jurors were drawn, and the defendant undertook to test the legality of these juries, by motion to quash the indictment, by objection to being placed upon trial, and also by-plea in abatement. So far as this insistence is concerned, it is- identical with the questions raised in the ease of John Brown *261 v. State (Ala. Sup.) 96 South. 475 1 (decided April 26, 1923), in which case the decision is adverse to the contention of the defendant here made. Upon the authority of that case the rulings of the court in this connection are held to he without error.

The remaining insistence of error relates to the refusal of the court to give special written charge A, requested by defendant. A charge of similar import was approved in the case of Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 367, but the charge here contains the term “to the seclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis,” etc. This renders the charge bad, and its refusal was not error.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the circuit court appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

209 Ala. 490.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The defendant was indicted, tric-d, and convicted for the offense of assault with intent to murder. He was duly sentenced to an indeterminate term Of imprisonment of from six to eight years in the state penitentiary.

The principal insistence of error relates to the manner in which the grand jury anu petit jurors were drawn, and the defendant undertook to test the legality of these juries, by motion to quash the indictment, by objection to being placed upon trial, and also by-plea in abatement. So far as this insistence is concerned, it is- identical with the questions raised in the ease of John Brown *261 v. State (Ala. Sup.) 96 South. 475 1 (decided April 26, 1923), in which case the decision is adverse to the contention of the defendant here made. Upon the authority of that case the rulings of the court in this connection are held to he without error.

The remaining insistence of error relates to the refusal of the court to give special written charge A, requested by defendant. A charge of similar import was approved in the case of Wharton v. State, 73 Ala. 367, but the charge here contains the term “to the seclusion of every other reasonable hypothesis,” etc. This renders the charge bad, and its refusal was not error.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the circuit court appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

1

209 Ala. 490.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 So. 730, 19 Ala. App. 260, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cleveland-v-state-alactapp-1923.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack