Higdon v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Higdon v. State

104 So. 913, 20 Ala. App. 649, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 157

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1925

Docket8 Div. 281.

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 104 So. 913 (Higdon 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

Higdon v. State, 104 So. 913, 20 Ala. App. 649, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 157 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J. ‘

Counsel for appellant now make the insistence that defendant was forced to trial in the absence of his witnesses, for whom subpmnas had been issued and executed. The granting of continuances in criminal cases is largely in the discretion of the trial judge, whose action in this regard will not be reviewed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Lumpkin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 272, 97 So. 171.

It is next insisted that this judgment should be reversed, because the trial court refused to grant a new trial on grounds alleging certain irregularities in the drawing of the venire for the week of the term in which defendant was tried, and from which was selected the jury to try defendant.

No allegation is made that the facts set up in the grounds for the motion were not known to defendant before he went to trial, and no facts are proven in support of the motion that such was the case, or that he could not have known the true facts by due diligence. If the defendant or his attorney knew about the matter of drawing the jury, or, -by the exercise of due diligence, could have ascertained the facts, he cannot for the first time¡ raise the question by motion for a new trial. Wadsworth v. State, 18 Ala. App. 352, 92 So. 245.

If defendant did not know the facts, and could not by due diligence have ascertained them, the motion for new trial on that ground would require allegation and proof; neither of which was done in this case. Hamilton v. State, 17 Ala. App. 109, 82 So. 557; 1 Mayfield Dig. pp. 538, 546. Moreover-, under section 8637 of the Oode of 1923, “no objection can be taken to any venire of jurors except for fraud in drawing or summoning the jurors.” There is no such allegation’ or proof in support of this motion.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J. ‘

Counsel for appellant now make the insistence that defendant was forced to trial in the absence of his witnesses, for whom subpmnas had been issued and executed. The granting of continuances in criminal cases is largely in the discretion of the trial judge, whose action in this regard will not be reviewed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Lumpkin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 272, 97 So. 171.

It is next insisted that this judgment should be reversed, because the trial court refused to grant a new trial on grounds alleging certain irregularities in the drawing of the venire for the week of the term in which defendant was tried, and from which was selected the jury to try defendant.

No allegation is made that the facts set up in the grounds for the motion were not known to defendant before he went to trial, and no facts are proven in support of the motion that such was the case, or that he could not have known the true facts by due diligence. If the defendant or his attorney knew about the matter of drawing the jury, or, -by the exercise of due diligence, could have ascertained the facts, he cannot for the first time¡ raise the question by motion for a new trial. Wadsworth v. State, 18 Ala. App. 352, 92 So. 245.

If defendant did not know the facts, and could not by due diligence have ascertained them, the motion for new trial on that ground would require allegation and proof; neither of which was done in this case. Hamilton v. State, 17 Ala. App. 109, 82 So. 557; 1 Mayfield Dig. pp. 538, 546. Moreover-, under section 8637 of the Oode of 1923, “no objection can be taken to any venire of jurors except for fraud in drawing or summoning the jurors.” There is no such allegation’ or proof in support of this motion.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 So. 913, 20 Ala. App. 649, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/higdon-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack