In Re Rucker v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

In Re Rucker v. State

340 So. 2d 830, 1976 Ala. LEXIS 1593

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 10, 1976

DocketSC 1885

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 340 So. 2d 830 (In Re Rucker 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

In Re Rucker v. State, 340 So. 2d 830, 1976 Ala. LEXIS 1593 (Ala. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

FAULKNER, Justice.

Writ quashed as improvidently granted.

In quashing this writ, we wish to be understood as specifically disapproving the following language in the plurality opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals, viz.:

“The trend of the new rules of court procedure now controlling is to get away from technical disposition of cases and to reach the merits of the dispute. This is a very good case to observe this new trend. We conclude that the failure of the trial court to ask defendant how he pleads was a technical and harmless omission that did not deny defendant any rights.”

There are no new rules of court procedure with respect to criminal cases, as yet. Moreover, we cannot agree that the alleged failure to ask defendant how he pleads is “harmless” error.

To the contrary, the rule of our decisions is that the judgment entry must contain a statement that the defendant was arraigned in open court. Bray v. State, 16 Ala.App. 433, 78 So. 463 (1918).

Here, the judgment entry recites “issue joined.” This has been held to be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of an arraignment and plea. Newsome v. State, 49 Ala.App. 248, 270 So.2d 680 (1972).

WRIT QUASHED.

BLOODWORTH, MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, EMBRY and BEATTY, JJ., concur. HEFLIN, C. J., and SHORES, J., not sitting.

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