Jones v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Jones v. State

93 So. 210, 18 Ala. App. 478, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 159

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 1922

Docket6 Div. 9.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 So. 210 (Jones 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

Jones v. State, 93 So. 210, 18 Ala. App. 478, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 159 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The sheriff’s return in the case at bar shows the warrant of the Governor of this state and an affidavit charging the prisoner with a crime, but does not set out the requisition of the executive of the state of Missouri. The warrant of the Governor of this state, however, recites that the demand was made, and other jurisdictional facts.- The rule laid down in this state is that the warrant of the Governor, reciting these jurisdictional facts, is in itself prima facie sufficient to show that all necessary prerequisites have been complied with prior to its issue by him. Young v. State, 155 Ala. 145, 46 South. 580; Singleton v. State, 144 Ala. 104, 42 South. 23; Davis’ Case, 122 Mass. 324; Robinson v. Flanders, 29 Ind. 10.

The return having made out a prima facie case, and no testimony having been offered to rebut it, there was, of course, no error in the court’s ruling in this respect. There was no error in the ruling of the court in sustaining the state’s objection to the question propounded to petitioner;

“I will ask you to state to the court whether or not you are a fugitive from justice from the state "of Missouri.”

It was competent for petitioner to show by facts that he was not a fugitive from justice, but this question called for a conclusion of facts, as well as of law. Mohr’s Case, 73 Ala. 503, 49 Am. Rep. 63; Godwin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 397, 78 South. 313.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MERRITT, J.

The sheriff’s return in the case at bar shows the warrant of the Governor of this state and an affidavit charging the prisoner with a crime, but does not set out the requisition of the executive of the state of Missouri. The warrant of the Governor of this state, however, recites that the demand was made, and other jurisdictional facts.- The rule laid down in this state is that the warrant of the Governor, reciting these jurisdictional facts, is in itself prima facie sufficient to show that all necessary prerequisites have been complied with prior to its issue by him. Young v. State, 155 Ala. 145, 46 South. 580; Singleton v. State, 144 Ala. 104, 42 South. 23; Davis’ Case, 122 Mass. 324; Robinson v. Flanders, 29 Ind. 10.

The return having made out a prima facie case, and no testimony having been offered to rebut it, there was, of course, no error in the court’s ruling in this respect. There was no error in the ruling of the court in sustaining the state’s objection to the question propounded to petitioner;

“I will ask you to state to the court whether or not you are a fugitive from justice from the state "of Missouri.”

It was competent for petitioner to show by facts that he was not a fugitive from justice, but this question called for a conclusion of facts, as well as of law. Mohr’s Case, 73 Ala. 503, 49 Am. Rep. 63; Godwin v. State, 16 Ala. App. 397, 78 South. 313.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 210, 18 Ala. App. 478, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack