Richardson v. State

111 So. 204, 215 Ala. 318, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 473
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedDecember 2, 1926
Docket1 Div. 427.
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 111 So. 204 (Richardson 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
Richardson v. State, 111 So. 204, 215 Ala. 318, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 473 (Ala. 1926).

Opinion

BOTJLDIN, J.

A criminal prosecution covers offenses only which were committed before prosecution begun and within the statutory period of limitation. Two questions of time are involved: (a) When was the offense committed? (b) When was the prosecution begun? The burden is on the state as to both.

The witnesses fix the time of the offense in their testimony. Where, as here, the evidence shows- without conflict the offense was committed, If at all, some three months before the trial on appeal in the circuit court, this is sufficient to show the offense was not barred when the prosecution was begun in the county court.

But it does not go to the point that the offense given in evidence was. committed before the prosecution was begun in the county court. Of this fact, the affidavit instituting the prosecution in the county court, or the certified transcript thereof, sent up under Code, § 3839, is the best evidence.

Eor the purpose of suspending the running of the statute of limitation, the prosecution is begun by the issuance of the warrant, Code, § 4934. But the warrant is based on the affidavit, and could not cover offenses subsequent to the affidavit. In the nature of the case, the prosecution must pertain to offenses committed before the affidavit is made.

The, trial court was not in error in admitting the affidavit in the county court for the limited purpose of showing when the prosecution was begun. The Court of Appeals erred in so holding.

The writ of certiorari is granted, judgment of reversal vacated, and the cause remanded to the Court of Appeals.

Writ granted. Reversed and remanded.

All the Justices concur.

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

Related

Hulsey v. State
196 So. 3d 342 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2015)
Curtis Leon Lomax v. State of Alabama
629 F.2d 413 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
Griffin v. State
352 So. 2d 847 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1977)
Scott v. State
227 So. 2d 436 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1969)
People v. Wright
173 N.E.2d 451 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1961)
Davis v. State
35 So. 2d 621 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)
Horn v. State
111 So. 452 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1927)
Richardson v. State
112 So. 193 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1927)
Richardson v. State
111 So. 202 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
111 So. 204, 215 Ala. 318, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 473, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-state-ala-1926.