Dowdy v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dowdy v. State

134 So. 896, 24 Ala. App. 333, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 305

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 26, 1931

Docket8 Div. 224.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 134 So. 896 (Dowdy 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

Dowdy v. State, 134 So. 896, 24 Ala. App. 333, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 305 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The prosecution in this case was predicated upon a purported indictment, which attempted to charge this appellant with a misdemeanor, to wit, an assault with a weapon. He was tried and convicted by the jury of an “attempt to assault with a weapon,” his fine being fixed at $10.

The indictment does not show authentication as provided by Code 1907, § 7300 (Code 1923, § 8682), which reads: “The concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary to find an indictment; and when so found it must be indorsed ‘a true bill,’ and the indorsement signed by the foreman.”

For the failure of the indictment to bear this necessary indorsement, it is not a valid indictment and will not support a judgment of conviction. This identical question has been decided, as here, in the following cases: Memory McMullen v. State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 So. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Bilbo v. State, 1 Ala. App. 74, 55 So. 927; Banks v. State, 13 Ala. App. 41, 69 So. 242; Smiley v. State, 11 Ala. App. 67, 65 So. 916; Joyner v. State, 78 Ala. 448; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17, 24, 29 So. 569; Coburn v. State, 151 Ala. 100, 44 So. 58, 15 Ann. Cas. 249.

No valid indictment having been shown, it is unnecessary to consider other questions presented.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The prosecution in this case was predicated upon a purported indictment, which attempted to charge this appellant with a misdemeanor, to wit, an assault with a weapon. He was tried and convicted by the jury of an “attempt to assault with a weapon,” his fine being fixed at $10.

The indictment does not show authentication as provided by Code 1907, § 7300 (Code 1923, § 8682), which reads: “The concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary to find an indictment; and when so found it must be indorsed ‘a true bill,’ and the indorsement signed by the foreman.”

For the failure of the indictment to bear this necessary indorsement, it is not a valid indictment and will not support a judgment of conviction. This identical question has been decided, as here, in the following cases: Memory McMullen v. State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 So. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 So. 203; Bilbo v. State, 1 Ala. App. 74, 55 So. 927; Banks v. State, 13 Ala. App. 41, 69 So. 242; Smiley v. State, 11 Ala. App. 67, 65 So. 916; Joyner v. State, 78 Ala. 448; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17, 24, 29 So. 569; Coburn v. State, 151 Ala. 100, 44 So. 58, 15 Ann. Cas. 249.

No valid indictment having been shown, it is unnecessary to consider other questions presented.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 So. 896, 24 Ala. App. 333, 1931 Ala. App. LEXIS 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowdy-v-state-alactapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack