Martin v. State

97 So. 768, 19 Ala. App. 432, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 249
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided July 14, 1923·No. 7 Div. 909.·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

FOSTER, J.

Affirmed on the authority of Lauren v. State, ante, p. 334, 97 South. 257.

On Rehearing.

“It is permissible in a prosecution for crime to prove the flight of the defendant, and any evidence tending to prove flight, or that the defendant was hiding out to avoid arrost is relevant. For this purpose, and after it had been shown that defendant ran from the still when the officers found and raided it, the sheriff could testify that he searched for defendant at and near defendants home and could not find him.” Lauren v. State, ante, p. 334, 97 South. 257.

This defendant and another were separately indicted for the same offense and were by consent tried together and separate verdicts were returned.

Two defendants indicted separately for the same felony shown' by' the evidence to have been committed jointly may consent ■to be tried together and ,a separate verdict may be returned in each case.

After having expressly consented in the • lower court to be tried together, the defendants may not in this court repudiate their' agreement.

There is no merit in the exceptions reserved to the evidence.

The application for rehearing is overruled.

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

Martin v. State, 97 So. 768, 19 Ala. App. 432, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 249 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

97 So. 768 (Martin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Chapman v. State
487 So. 2d 269 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1986)
Tice v. State
460 So. 2d 273 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
Holsemback v. State
443 So. 2d 1371 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1983)
Helums v. State
126 So. 183 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1930)