Kinnebrew v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Kinnebrew v. State

31 So. 567, 132 Ala. 8, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 82

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 13, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 31 So. 567 (Kinnebrew 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

Kinnebrew v. State, 31 So. 567, 132 Ala. 8, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 82 (Ala. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

SHARPE, J.

— An indictment proceeds from and is the act of the grand jury and to give it validity no function of the solicitor is necessary.—Joyner v. State, TS Ala. 448. Whether his appointment was valid or not the mere fact that the solicitor appeared without more before the grand jury when the indictment was found did not affect- the validity of the indictment, and, therefore, the motion to quash did not raise the question of his eligibility for appointment.

Bobbery being an offense which may be punished capitally a judgment of conviction therefor cannot be upheld on appeal unless the record shows- affirmatively tliat a day was set for trial and that a special jury was drawn in accordance with the requirements of the statute, Cr, Code, § 5004. —Burton v.State, 115 Ala. 1, and cases there cited. That part of the record if there was any such in the trial court, is not of the class which under section 4325 of the Code may properly be omitted from the transcript.

Beversed and remanded.

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

SHARPE, J.

— An indictment proceeds from and is the act of the grand jury and to give it validity no function of the solicitor is necessary.—Joyner v. State, TS Ala. 448. Whether his appointment was valid or not the mere fact that the solicitor appeared without more before the grand jury when the indictment was found did not affect- the validity of the indictment, and, therefore, the motion to quash did not raise the question of his eligibility for appointment.

Bobbery being an offense which may be punished capitally a judgment of conviction therefor cannot be upheld on appeal unless the record shows- affirmatively tliat a day was set for trial and that a special jury was drawn in accordance with the requirements of the statute, Cr, Code, § 5004. —Burton v.State, 115 Ala. 1, and cases there cited. That part of the record if there was any such in the trial court, is not of the class which under section 4325 of the Code may properly be omitted from the transcript.

Beversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 So. 567, 132 Ala. 8, 1902 Ala. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kinnebrew-v-state-ala-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack