Hanners v. State

88 So. 55, 17 Ala. App. 597, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 220
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 29, 1920·No. 4 Div. 637.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The indictment does not show authentication as provided by Code 1907, § 7300, 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, ante, p. 504, 86 South. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 South. 203; Bilbo v. State, 1 Ala. App. 74, 55 South. 927; Banks v. State, 13 Ala. App. 41, 69 South. 242; Smiley v. State, 11 Ala. App. 67, 65 South. 916; Joyner v. State, 78 Ala. 448; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17, 24, 29 South. 569; Coburn v. State, 151 Ala. 100, 44 South. 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

Hanners v. State, 88 So. 55, 17 Ala. App. 597, 1920 Ala. App. LEXIS 220 (Ala. Ct. App. 1920).

88 So. 55 (Hanners v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sanford v. State
159 So. 271 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1935)
Layton v. State
124 So. 406 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1929)
Honeycutt v. State
109 So. 371 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1926)
Dunn v. State
94 So. 786 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1922)