Gideon v. State

181 So. 126, 28 Ala. App. 177, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 108
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 22, 1938·No. 8 Div. 679.·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

As said by Judge Samford for this court in the opinion in the case of Masters v. State, 18 Ala.App. 614, 94 So. 249, certiorari denied Ex parte Masters, 208 Ala. 699, 94 So. 922: “The general rule is that when a statute creates a new offense, unknown to the common law, and describes its constituents, the offense may be charged in the statutory language.”

The indictment here follows, literally, so far as we can see, subsection (a) of section 1 of the act of the Legislature approved July 25, 1931, Gen. Acts Ala.1931, p. 806, in describing the gambling device the possession óf which is denounced by section 3 of the same act, page 807. The demurrers were properly overruled. Code 1928, § 4529.

There is no bill of exceptions. And we see no other question requiring discussion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Gideon v. State, 181 So. 126, 28 Ala. App. 177, 1938 Ala. App. LEXIS 108 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

181 So. 126 (Gideon v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McKinney v. State
278 So. 2d 719 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)
Kennedy v. State
107 So. 2d 913 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1958)
Gayden v. State
80 So. 2d 501 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1955)
Cusimano v. State
31 So. 2d 139 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1947)
Strumpf v. State
18 So. 2d 104 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1944)
Gideon v. State
181 So. 127 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)