Ransom v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Ransom v. State

126 So. 608, 23 Ala. App. 440, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 69

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 4, 1930

Docket8 Div. 875.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 So. 608 (Ransom 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

Ransom v. State, 126 So. 608, 23 Ala. App. 440, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 69 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

On the trial defendant moved to quash the indictment on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence before the grand jury. The evidence before the court trying this issue was without dispute that two witnesses had appeared before the grand jury and were examined in the case there being investigated against this defendant. The sufficiency of. this evidence cannot be inquired into. Sparrenberger v. State, 53 Ala. 481, 25 Am. Rep. 643; Gunter v. State, 21 Ala. App. 554, 110 So. 58; Gore v. State, 217 Ala. 68, 114 So. 794.

It was relevant and competent to prove any facts tending to show flight of the defendant, and in this connection it was admissible to prove that defendant declared his intention of going to Mississippi in anticipation of an indictment in connection with the offense here charged. The several rulings- of the court on this question were free from error.

We have examined the other exceptions reserved, and in them find no prejudicial error.

The petition filed in this court praying a reversal of this cause on the ground of newly discovered evidence cannot be considered. The functions of this court are appellate, and we must be confined to the record. If justice has miscarried or a conviction has been had on perjured testimony, the remedy is with another branch of the government.

We find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

On the trial defendant moved to quash the indictment on the grounds of insufficiency of evidence before the grand jury. The evidence before the court trying this issue was without dispute that two witnesses had appeared before the grand jury and were examined in the case there being investigated against this defendant. The sufficiency of. this evidence cannot be inquired into. Sparrenberger v. State, 53 Ala. 481, 25 Am. Rep. 643; Gunter v. State, 21 Ala. App. 554, 110 So. 58; Gore v. State, 217 Ala. 68, 114 So. 794.

It was relevant and competent to prove any facts tending to show flight of the defendant, and in this connection it was admissible to prove that defendant declared his intention of going to Mississippi in anticipation of an indictment in connection with the offense here charged. The several rulings- of the court on this question were free from error.

We have examined the other exceptions reserved, and in them find no prejudicial error.

The petition filed in this court praying a reversal of this cause on the ground of newly discovered evidence cannot be considered. The functions of this court are appellate, and we must be confined to the record. If justice has miscarried or a conviction has been had on perjured testimony, the remedy is with another branch of the government.

We find no reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 So. 608, 23 Ala. App. 440, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ransom-v-state-alactapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack