Dill v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dill v. State

59 So. 307, 5 Ala. App. 162, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 154

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 59 So. 307 (Dill 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

Dill v. State, 59 So. 307, 5 Ala. App. 162, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 154 (Ala. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J. —

The defendant Avas convicted of having violated the prohibition laws. After the verdict and judgment of conviction, the defendant moved the court for a new trial, alleging misconduct of the jury trying the case as ground .for the motion. The misconduct alleged is that, while the jury was in the jury room deliberating upon a verdict, a juror in an adjoining jury room, engaged in considering another case, entered the jury room in which the jury in this case was deliberating (in which there was a closet), and Avas asked by one of the jurors in this case what the jury had done in the [164]*164other case, in which he was a juror; whereupon the juror in the other case informed him. It is not shown that there was any affinity between the cases, or that the defendants-in the different cases were associated or connected in any way. It does not appear that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion'for a new trial. Moreover, the ruling of the trial court in refusing the defendant’s motion is not revisable here. — Herndon v. State, 2 Ala. App. 118, 56 South. 85; Ferguson v. State, 149 Ala. 21, 43 South. 16; Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 84, 36 South. 734.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J. —

The defendant Avas convicted of having violated the prohibition laws. After the verdict and judgment of conviction, the defendant moved the court for a new trial, alleging misconduct of the jury trying the case as ground .for the motion. The misconduct alleged is that, while the jury was in the jury room deliberating upon a verdict, a juror in an adjoining jury room, engaged in considering another case, entered the jury room in which the jury in this case was deliberating (in which there was a closet), and Avas asked by one of the jurors in this case what the jury had done in the [164]*164other case, in which he was a juror; whereupon the juror in the other case informed him. It is not shown that there was any affinity between the cases, or that the defendants-in the different cases were associated or connected in any way. It does not appear that the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the defendant’s motion'for a new trial. Moreover, the ruling of the trial court in refusing the defendant’s motion is not revisable here. — Herndon v. State, 2 Ala. App. 118, 56 South. 85; Ferguson v. State, 149 Ala. 21, 43 South. 16; Thomas v. State, 139 Ala. 84, 36 South. 734.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 So. 307, 5 Ala. App. 162, 1912 Ala. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dill-v-state-alactapp-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack