Daley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Daley v. State

74 So. 843, 16 Ala. App. 7, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 93

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 1917

Docket8 Div. 491.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 74 So. 843 (Daley 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

Daley v. State, 74 So. 843, 16 Ala. App. 7, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 93 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

BBOWN, P. J.

The appellant contends that the act approved September 28, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 940), in so far as it requires tbe defendant indicted for a misdemeanor to file with the clerk of the court a written demand for trial by jury, is violative of section 6 of the Constitution of 1901, guaranteeing in all criminal prosecutions by indictment the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is committed, because it requires the demand to be made in writing. This contention is fully answered in tbe following cases: Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 170 Ala. 178, 54 South. 213, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1093; Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89, 31 Am. Rep. 34; Ireland v. State, 11 Ala. App. 155, 65 South. 443; Frazier v. State, 11 Ala. App. 285, 66 South. 879.

There was evidence before the court authorizing the conclusion announced in the judgment of guilt, and a new trial was properly denied. Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 204, 72 South. 761.

Affirmed.

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

BBOWN, P. J.

The appellant contends that the act approved September 28, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 940), in so far as it requires tbe defendant indicted for a misdemeanor to file with the clerk of the court a written demand for trial by jury, is violative of section 6 of the Constitution of 1901, guaranteeing in all criminal prosecutions by indictment the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is committed, because it requires the demand to be made in writing. This contention is fully answered in tbe following cases: Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 170 Ala. 178, 54 South. 213, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1093; Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89, 31 Am. Rep. 34; Ireland v. State, 11 Ala. App. 155, 65 South. 443; Frazier v. State, 11 Ala. App. 285, 66 South. 879.

There was evidence before the court authorizing the conclusion announced in the judgment of guilt, and a new trial was properly denied. Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 204, 72 South. 761.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 So. 843, 16 Ala. App. 7, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 93, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daley-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack