Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Johnson v. State

22 So. 2d 105, 246 Ala. 630, 1945 Ala. LEXIS 249

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 29, 1945

Docket6 Div. 328.

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 22 So. 2d 105 (Johnson 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

Johnson v. State, 22 So. 2d 105, 246 Ala. 630, 1945 Ala. LEXIS 249 (Ala. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

FOSTER, Justice.

The only feature of the opinion of the' Court of Appeals which seems to need a discussion by us relates to a portion of the-solicitor’s argument to the jury in which he stated: “I have never tried a case where the. law abiding, self-respecting citizens have got their attention aroused or their eyes on this Jury as they have in this case. They are calling on you men. * * * ” The trial court overruled objection to this statement. The Court of Appeals was of the opinion that this argument comes under the- *631 influence of the case of Bridges v. State, 26 Ala.App. 1, 152 So. 51, certiorari denied 228 Ala. 72, 152 So. 54. But we think it comes more properly under the influence of the former appeal in the Bridges case, in which the judgment was reversed on account of the remark of the solicitor as follows : “I said the night after the explosion, or the next day, the cry went up from the city of Birmingham and the State of Alabama, that they wanted to take the life of the man who threw that bomb.” 225 Ala. 81(13), 142 So. 56, 61. Other cases are also pertinent in this respect. Blue v. State, Ala. Sup., 19 So.2d 11; 1 Dubose v. State, 148 Ala. 560, 42 So. 862; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; Dollar v. State, 99 Ala. 236, 13 So. 575; Tannehill v. State, 159 Ala. 51, 48 So. 662.

We think the judgment of the trial court should be reversed on the basis of that ruling. This case is therefore remanded to the Court of Appeals for the proper order of reversal.

Reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur.

1

Ante, p. 73.

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

FOSTER, Justice.

The only feature of the opinion of the' Court of Appeals which seems to need a discussion by us relates to a portion of the-solicitor’s argument to the jury in which he stated: “I have never tried a case where the. law abiding, self-respecting citizens have got their attention aroused or their eyes on this Jury as they have in this case. They are calling on you men. * * * ” The trial court overruled objection to this statement. The Court of Appeals was of the opinion that this argument comes under the- *631 influence of the case of Bridges v. State, 26 Ala.App. 1, 152 So. 51, certiorari denied 228 Ala. 72, 152 So. 54. But we think it comes more properly under the influence of the former appeal in the Bridges case, in which the judgment was reversed on account of the remark of the solicitor as follows : “I said the night after the explosion, or the next day, the cry went up from the city of Birmingham and the State of Alabama, that they wanted to take the life of the man who threw that bomb.” 225 Ala. 81(13), 142 So. 56, 61. Other cases are also pertinent in this respect. Blue v. State, Ala. Sup., 19 So.2d 11; 1 Dubose v. State, 148 Ala. 560, 42 So. 862; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; Dollar v. State, 99 Ala. 236, 13 So. 575; Tannehill v. State, 159 Ala. 51, 48 So. 662.

We think the judgment of the trial court should be reversed on the basis of that ruling. This case is therefore remanded to the Court of Appeals for the proper order of reversal.

Reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur.

1

Ante, p. 73.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 So. 2d 105, 246 Ala. 630, 1945 Ala. LEXIS 249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-state-ala-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack