Hayes v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Hayes v. State

107 Ala. 1

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 107 Ala. 1 (Hayes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayes v. State, 107 Ala. 1 (Ala. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKELL, O. J.

The writing the jury delivered to the clerk during the recess of the court, was in no proper sense a verdict. In all cases of felony, the verdict of the jury can be pronounced or rendered only in open court, in the presence of the judge and of the defendant. 1 Bish. Or. Proc., § 1001; State v. Hughes, 2 Ala. 102 ; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325 ; Cook v The State, 60 Ala. 39; Jones v. State, 97 Ala. 77 ; Jackson v. State, 102 Ala. 76. The court should not have recognized the writing as of any force. If after their voluntary dispersion, a'nd their reassemblage under the order of the court, the jurors had been remitted to their deliberations, and had returned a verdict into court, it may be, the illegality and irregularity of their conduct would have been only ground for new trial. But this course was not pursued ; the writing was received as a verdict, and the jury discharged. When the jury are sworn and the trial is entered upon; the prisoner is placed in'jeopardy, and the unauthorized discharge of the jury, without a verdict, is the equivalent of an acquittal. — Ned v. The [5]*5State, 7 Port. 187 ; Cook v. State, supra; Jones v. State, supra ; Jackson v. State, supra.

The judgment must be reversed, and as the discharge of the jury operated au acquittal, that judgment must be here entered.

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

BRICKELL, O. J.

The writing the jury delivered to the clerk during the recess of the court, was in no proper sense a verdict. In all cases of felony, the verdict of the jury can be pronounced or rendered only in open court, in the presence of the judge and of the defendant. 1 Bish. Or. Proc., § 1001; State v. Hughes, 2 Ala. 102 ; Waller v. State, 40 Ala. 325 ; Cook v The State, 60 Ala. 39; Jones v. State, 97 Ala. 77 ; Jackson v. State, 102 Ala. 76. The court should not have recognized the writing as of any force. If after their voluntary dispersion, a'nd their reassemblage under the order of the court, the jurors had been remitted to their deliberations, and had returned a verdict into court, it may be, the illegality and irregularity of their conduct would have been only ground for new trial. But this course was not pursued ; the writing was received as a verdict, and the jury discharged. When the jury are sworn and the trial is entered upon; the prisoner is placed in'jeopardy, and the unauthorized discharge of the jury, without a verdict, is the equivalent of an acquittal. — Ned v. The [5]*5State, 7 Port. 187 ; Cook v. State, supra; Jones v. State, supra ; Jackson v. State, supra.

The judgment must be reversed, and as the discharge of the jury operated au acquittal, that judgment must be here entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

107 Ala. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-state-ala-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack