State v. Knighton

Alabama Court of Appeals

State v. Knighton

108 So. 85, 21 Ala. App. 330, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 109

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 6, 1926

Docket7 Div. 213.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 108 So. 85 (State v. Knighton) 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

State v. Knighton, 108 So. 85, 21 Ala. App. 330, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 109 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Petitioners were arrested on warrants issued from the county court on affidavits duly made charging them with the crime of rape. The county court *331 has preliminary jurisdiction only of the crime charged.- Pending the proceedings in the county court the grand jury was legally called into session by the judge of the circuit court, and the crime charged by the affidavits was investigated by it, and indictments were returned into the circuit court. The jurisdiction of the county court in the premises is not of equal or concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court, and therefore the pendency of the preliminary proceedings in that court could 'not interfere with the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The indictment of defendants in the circuit court superseded the proceedings in the county court and rendered further consideration of questions in that court moot.

The provisions of chapter 213, Code 1923, are not designed to in any manner restrict or to interfere with the jurisdiction of the circuit court acting through its grand jury regularly- impaneled and sworn under sections 8665, 8666, and 8667 of the Code of 1923. When the grand jury is so impaneled and sworn, it becomes the supreme inquisitorial body of the county, and no preliminary act of any court or judge can limit its powers.

The order of the judge releasing the defendants from the indictment and remanding them to the custody of the sheriff, under the preliminary charge, is reversed, and an order will here be rendered remanding the defendants to the custody of the sheriff of Cherokee county, under the capias issued on the indictments found and returned by the grand jury.

Reversed and rendered.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Petitioners were arrested on warrants issued from the county court on affidavits duly made charging them with the crime of rape. The county court *331 has preliminary jurisdiction only of the crime charged.- Pending the proceedings in the county court the grand jury was legally called into session by the judge of the circuit court, and the crime charged by the affidavits was investigated by it, and indictments were returned into the circuit court. The jurisdiction of the county court in the premises is not of equal or concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court, and therefore the pendency of the preliminary proceedings in that court could 'not interfere with the jurisdiction of the circuit court. The indictment of defendants in the circuit court superseded the proceedings in the county court and rendered further consideration of questions in that court moot.

The provisions of chapter 213, Code 1923, are not designed to in any manner restrict or to interfere with the jurisdiction of the circuit court acting through its grand jury regularly- impaneled and sworn under sections 8665, 8666, and 8667 of the Code of 1923. When the grand jury is so impaneled and sworn, it becomes the supreme inquisitorial body of the county, and no preliminary act of any court or judge can limit its powers.

The order of the judge releasing the defendants from the indictment and remanding them to the custody of the sheriff, under the preliminary charge, is reversed, and an order will here be rendered remanding the defendants to the custody of the sheriff of Cherokee county, under the capias issued on the indictments found and returned by the grand jury.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 So. 85, 21 Ala. App. 330, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-knighton-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack