Pendergrass v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Pendergrass v. State

93 So. 44, 18 Ala. App. 465, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 150

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 1922

Docket8 Div. 787.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 So. 44 (Pendergrass 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

Pendergrass v. State, 93 So. 44, 18 Ala. App. 465, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 150 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

*466 MERRITT, J.

There waa no error in overruling the defendant’s motion. There is nothing in the record to show that the first indictment, which the motion asserts was nol.' prossed, was for the same offense as that of the second indictment, the one under which he was convicted, and. if so, wo know of no rule of law that would preclude the solicitor from entering a nol. pros, under one, and proceeding under the other. The defendant cannot he said to have been put in jeopardy by the mere finding of an indictment.

There appears to have been no ruling of the court on the defendant’s motion to exclude the answer of the witness Holcomb to the question as to “whether or not there was a still there.”

We find no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

*466 MERRITT, J.

There waa no error in overruling the defendant’s motion. There is nothing in the record to show that the first indictment, which the motion asserts was nol.' prossed, was for the same offense as that of the second indictment, the one under which he was convicted, and. if so, wo know of no rule of law that would preclude the solicitor from entering a nol. pros, under one, and proceeding under the other. The defendant cannot he said to have been put in jeopardy by the mere finding of an indictment.

There appears to have been no ruling of the court on the defendant’s motion to exclude the answer of the witness Holcomb to the question as to “whether or not there was a still there.”

We find no error in the record, and the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 44, 18 Ala. App. 465, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendergrass-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack