Daley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Daley v. State

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

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 23, 1917·No. 8 Div. 491.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

Pincite

74 So. 843 (Daley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related