Mitchem v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Mitchem v. State

146 So. 420, 25 Ala. App. 338, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 29

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1933

Docket4 Div. 945.

StatusPublished

This text of 146 So. 420 (Mitchem 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

Mitchem v. State, 146 So. 420, 25 Ala. App. 338, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 29 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of miscegenation. Alabama Code of 192S (Michie) § 5001. The appeal is submitted here on the record, proper, without bill of exceptions.

The indictment was in Code form, and therefore the demurrers to same were properly overruled. Code, supra, section 4527; Williams v. State, 23 Ala. App. 365, 125 So. 690.

It is sufficiently apparent that appellant was personally present in court during all stages of her arraignment, trial, conviction, etc. Frost v. State, 225 Ala. 232, 142 So. 427.

While we have no disposition to depart from our holding in the case of Reed v. State, 20 Ala. App. 496, 103 So. 97, and the holding in other of our cases in line therewith, yet we do not think' said holding is opposed, by virtue of the reason underlying it, to an affirmation of the judgment of conviction in the instant case.

Here, so far as we are advised, appellant’s co-indictee was regularly convicted, as was she. AVe would not — in fact, we are not permitted to — merely speculate that he was *339 acquitted, etc. If, indeed, error of the sort influencing our decision in Reed v. State, supra, was committed, it was incumbent upon appellant to afford us opportunity, by way of the necessary information through a bill of exceptions, or otherwise, legally, to so declare. Ferguson v. State, 24 Ala. App. 491, 137 So. 315.

We see nothing irregular, or erroneous, in the indictment, trial, etc., of appellant. 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, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of miscegenation. Alabama Code of 192S (Michie) § 5001. The appeal is submitted here on the record, proper, without bill of exceptions.

The indictment was in Code form, and therefore the demurrers to same were properly overruled. Code, supra, section 4527; Williams v. State, 23 Ala. App. 365, 125 So. 690.

It is sufficiently apparent that appellant was personally present in court during all stages of her arraignment, trial, conviction, etc. Frost v. State, 225 Ala. 232, 142 So. 427.

While we have no disposition to depart from our holding in the case of Reed v. State, 20 Ala. App. 496, 103 So. 97, and the holding in other of our cases in line therewith, yet we do not think' said holding is opposed, by virtue of the reason underlying it, to an affirmation of the judgment of conviction in the instant case.

Here, so far as we are advised, appellant’s co-indictee was regularly convicted, as was she. AVe would not — in fact, we are not permitted to — merely speculate that he was *339 acquitted, etc. If, indeed, error of the sort influencing our decision in Reed v. State, supra, was committed, it was incumbent upon appellant to afford us opportunity, by way of the necessary information through a bill of exceptions, or otherwise, legally, to so declare. Ferguson v. State, 24 Ala. App. 491, 137 So. 315.

We see nothing irregular, or erroneous, in the indictment, trial, etc., of appellant. And the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 So. 420, 25 Ala. App. 338, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchem-v-state-alactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack