Dunn v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dunn v. State

94 So. 786, 19 Ala. App. 64, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 40

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 19, 1922

Docket5 Div. 408.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 94 So. 786 (Dunn 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

Dunn v. State, 94 So. 786, 19 Ala. App. 64, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 40 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

*65 BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment contained, in this record fails to show a compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 7300 of the Code 1907, which provides that, in order to find a legal indictment against a person in this state, the concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary, and, when so found, it must be indorsed “a true bill,” and the indorsement signed by the foreman. The indictment here contains no such indorsement and is in consequence not a valid indictment and will not support a conviction. This identical question has been so decided in numerous decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court. Banners v. State, 17 Ala. App. 597, 88 South. 55; McMullen v. State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 South. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 South. 203; Mose v. State, 35 Ala. 425. See also cases cited in Hanners v. State, supra.

On the trial ofjhis cause numerous exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court; but as the indictment contained in the record is invalid, for the reasons above stated, there is no necessity to consider the several questions presented.

Reversed and remanded.

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

*65 BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment contained, in this record fails to show a compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 7300 of the Code 1907, which provides that, in order to find a legal indictment against a person in this state, the concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary, and, when so found, it must be indorsed “a true bill,” and the indorsement signed by the foreman. The indictment here contains no such indorsement and is in consequence not a valid indictment and will not support a conviction. This identical question has been so decided in numerous decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court. Banners v. State, 17 Ala. App. 597, 88 South. 55; McMullen v. State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 South. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 South. 203; Mose v. State, 35 Ala. 425. See also cases cited in Hanners v. State, supra.

On the trial ofjhis cause numerous exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court; but as the indictment contained in the record is invalid, for the reasons above stated, there is no necessity to consider the several questions presented.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 So. 786, 19 Ala. App. 64, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dunn-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack