Slatton v. State

272 So. 2d 586, 49 Ala. App. 377, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1366
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
DecidedJanuary 23, 1973
Docket6 Div. 381
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 272 So. 2d 586 (Slatton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Slatton v. State, 272 So. 2d 586, 49 Ala. App. 377, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1366 (Ala. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

L. S. MOORE, Supernumerary Circuit Judge.

The indictment charged the appellant with the offense of robbery. The victim of the robbery was Crestol Shipp, a woman. The trial resulted in a jury verdict finding the appellant guilty of robbery as charged ini the indictment and fixed his punishment at 15 years imprisonment in the penitentiary. The trial court entered Judgment in accordance with said verdict. This appeal is from that Judgment.

On the day the case was set for trial, the appellant entered a plea of former jeopardy. Said plea was heard before the trial Judge, without a jury and before the trial on its merits, evidence taken and said plea and said evidence were submitted to the Court for Judgment thereon without objection that it was not submitted to a jury and without any request or demand that it be submitted to a jury.

The evidence in connection with said plea shows that an indictment had been returned by the Grand Jury into the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, on July 16, 1971, which is as follows:

"THE STATE OF ALABAMA JEFFERSON COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT OF TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT July Session 1971
The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, ROGER DALE SLATTON feloniously took Thirty-Five Dollars of the lawful currency of the United States of America, a more particular description and denomination of which is to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown, the personal property of Crestol Shipp, from his person and against his will by violence to *379 his person, or by putting him in such fear as unwillingly to part with the same, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.
Earl C. Morgan, District Attorney, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama." (Italics added).

The case made by that indictment was designated in said court as Case No. 23507. The trial sheet (or bench notes) of that case introduced into evidence on the issue raised by the plea of former jeopardy contains the following court orders, along with other orders, to-wit:

“8-18-71. Passed to Nov. 29th, 1971 for trial. Jasper, Judge.
Nov. 29, 1971 R.
Nov. 30, 1971. Jury struck but not put under oath and indictment not read to the jury so selected and not sworn and defendant not called on to plead to indictment and he did not do so — case passed to 12-17-71 arraignment docket. Gibson, Judge.
Dec. 17, 1971, passed to 1-31-72 for trial, Jasper, Judge.
Jan. 31, 1972. Def. Co. Jail (#24461-R Reindictment) ”

The indictment upon which the appellant was tried was admitted into evidence and is as follows:

"THE STATE OF ALABAMA JEFFERSON COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT OF TENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT December Session 1971
The grand jury of said county charge that, before the finding of this indictment, ROGER DALE SLATTON, whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury, feloniously took Thirty-Five Dollars of the lawful currency of the United States of America, a more particular description and denomination of which is to the Grand Jury otherwise unknown, the personal property of Crestol Shipp, from her person and against her will by violence to her person, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama.
Earl C. Morgan, District Attorney, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama."

This later indictment was returned by the Grand Jury on Dec. 10, 1971 and filed by the Circuit Clerk on said date.

A transcript of the proceeding on Nov. 30, 1971, in Case No. 23507 was admitted into evidence on the hearing of said plea. That transcript shows that a Jury venire was brought into the court room and the indictment was read to the jury venire by the court and the jurors on the venire were qualified by the court; that counsel for the State and the Defendant also asked the jurors questions during the qualification of the jurors; that during this procedure the court stated:

“Ladies and gentlemen, it has been called to my attention that the person, Crestol Shipp, has been referred to as ‘him’ and ‘his’ in this indictment, and, in truth and fact, is a female person, rather than a male person.
All right, proceed.”

After the jurors were qualified and the jury struck and selected, that transcript also shows the following:

“THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I am not going to administer the oath to you as yet in this case.
There is a matter that has come up that I have to settle before we go forward.
That last door on my right, that open door where Mr. Morgan is, is our jury room, so you may retire back there.
There is a matter I have to get settled before we go back.
(Thereupon, the jury left the courtroom at 2:50 p. m., and, out of the presence and hearing of the jury, the following proceedings were had' and done:)
*380 THE'GQURT: For the record, now that the jury is out:
Gentlemen, the defense was informed during' the course of selecting a jury that the person named in the indictment is the person from whom the property was taken, that is, Crestol Shipp, who is a woman and not a man, and this indictment alleges, ‘from his person and against his will, by violence to his person or by putting him in such fear,’ and, of course, I have — I didn’t swear the jury.
After the selection of the jury, I was careful not to have the jury sworn and not to have a plea taken to the indictment, because, in that way, jeopardy would attach.
At the moment, I don’t know if there is a fatal variance, or not. I feel it would probably be a fatal variance if we proceeded. I put the jury back in the jury room so that we can check into it.”

That transcript at this point includes statements by the Judge and counsel for the state and the defendant and concludes with the following:

“THE COURT: What I am going to do is to pass this case over and suggest it go back before the grand jury for proper indictment. I understand the State, before I did that, wanted to offer to amend. Even if you had an agreement to amend, we would have to go right through it over again, and you would have to go through the same thing.
My thought is to let it go over at this point, but if you want to see if there is a possibility for amendment, we will dp so.
MR. BATCHELER: Well, we will offer the amendment, to changing ‘him’ to ‘her’ and ‘his’ to ‘hers’.
MR. MUNDY: We will not agree to such an amendment.

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

Related

Ex Parte Deramus
721 So. 2d 242 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1998)
Story v. State
435 So. 2d 1360 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1982)
Wilson v. State
329 So. 2d 649 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1976)
Higginbotham v. State
312 So. 2d 31 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1975)
Whitehurst v. State
288 So. 2d 152 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
272 So. 2d 586, 49 Ala. App. 377, 1973 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slatton-v-state-alacrimapp-1973.