Martin v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Martin v. State

124 So. 392, 23 Ala. App. 281, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 225

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1929

Docket8 Div. 826.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 124 So. 392 (Martin 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

Martin v. State, 124 So. 392, 23 Ala. App. 281, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 225 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for. a term of not less than six nor more than eight years.

We have carefully read the entire record, hut deem it unnecessary to mention here any other questions than those discussed by the able counsel representing appellant on this appeal, in his brief.

There was no impropriety in receiving the verdict of the jury because of tbe, at first, evasive answer of one of tbe jurors as to its being “his verdict.” The court was fully authorized to find, from the examination of said juror on the poll, that the verdict returned represented his convictions. When this is true, the verdict is sufficient and will be received. McAlpine v. State, 117 Ala. 93, 23 So. 130; Rudder v. State, 12 Ala. App. 72, 67 So. 738. And see Moss v. State, 152 Ala. 30, 44 So. 598; Bails v. State, 13 Ala. App. 273, 69 So. 250; and Brown v. State, 141 Ala. 80, 37 So. 408.

Even though one of the jurors, while the jury were deliberating on the case, may be shown to have “called out” the name of another venireman serving during that week of court, but not on the jury trying appellant, we are not persuaded that this would authorize testimony concerning things said and done, during such deliberation, between the jurors trying this case. We find no error of a legally prejudicial nature in any of the rulings on the hearing of appellant’s motion for a new trial, nor, for that matter, in any other ruling in the case; and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for. a term of not less than six nor more than eight years.

We have carefully read the entire record, hut deem it unnecessary to mention here any other questions than those discussed by the able counsel representing appellant on this appeal, in his brief.

There was no impropriety in receiving the verdict of the jury because of tbe, at first, evasive answer of one of tbe jurors as to its being “his verdict.” The court was fully authorized to find, from the examination of said juror on the poll, that the verdict returned represented his convictions. When this is true, the verdict is sufficient and will be received. McAlpine v. State, 117 Ala. 93, 23 So. 130; Rudder v. State, 12 Ala. App. 72, 67 So. 738. And see Moss v. State, 152 Ala. 30, 44 So. 598; Bails v. State, 13 Ala. App. 273, 69 So. 250; and Brown v. State, 141 Ala. 80, 37 So. 408.

Even though one of the jurors, while the jury were deliberating on the case, may be shown to have “called out” the name of another venireman serving during that week of court, but not on the jury trying appellant, we are not persuaded that this would authorize testimony concerning things said and done, during such deliberation, between the jurors trying this case. We find no error of a legally prejudicial nature in any of the rulings on the hearing of appellant’s motion for a new trial, nor, for that matter, in any other ruling in the case; and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 So. 392, 23 Ala. App. 281, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack