Moody v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Moody v. State

60 Ala. 78

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 60 Ala. 78 (Moody 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

Moody v. State, 60 Ala. 78 (Ala. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

MANNING, J.

In Dominick v. The State (40 Ala. 680), upon an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretenses, “ on the trial the defendant pleaded, in short by consent, former acquittal, and not guilty; upon which pleas issue was joined by the State, and both pleas [issues] were submitted to the jury at the same time.” This is precisely what was done in the cause now before us. The court said: “ The defendant who pleads the two pleas together, thus tendering the two issues together, and goes to trial upon them together, without objection, must be presumed, in such a case as this, to waive the irregularity. What our ruling would be, in a case of felony, we do not decide.” This is a case of misdemeanor only.

But, the court held that there must be a reversal in that case, “because the jury did not pass upon the plea of former acquittal and only rendered a verdict on the plea of not guilty.” In this particular, also, the present case is parallel with the one cited. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, but made no response to the issue upon the other plea.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded.

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

MANNING, J.

In Dominick v. The State (40 Ala. 680), upon an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretenses, “ on the trial the defendant pleaded, in short by consent, former acquittal, and not guilty; upon which pleas issue was joined by the State, and both pleas [issues] were submitted to the jury at the same time.” This is precisely what was done in the cause now before us. The court said: “ The defendant who pleads the two pleas together, thus tendering the two issues together, and goes to trial upon them together, without objection, must be presumed, in such a case as this, to waive the irregularity. What our ruling would be, in a case of felony, we do not decide.” This is a case of misdemeanor only.

But, the court held that there must be a reversal in that case, “because the jury did not pass upon the plea of former acquittal and only rendered a verdict on the plea of not guilty.” In this particular, also, the present case is parallel with the one cited. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, but made no response to the issue upon the other plea.

The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ala. 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moody-v-state-ala-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack