Turney v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Turney v. State

52 So. 910, 168 Ala. 128, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 516

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 2, 1910

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 52 So. 910 (Turney 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

Turney v. State, 52 So. 910, 168 Ala. 128, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 516 (Ala. 1910).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, J.

Under the influence of Carter v. State, 107 Ala. 146, 18 South. 232, it must be held that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the inquiry whether the language attributed to the defendant by the state’s witness, Mrs. Sharp, was, under the circumstances attending its utterance, within Code, § 6217, insulting. It cannot be ruled that, under all the circumstances, the language-so attributed was not susceptible of a meaning vulgar or lewd, and hence, to a female, insulting.

This trial was had in March, 1909. The defendant demanded a “struck jury.” It was refused him. Upon what authority this demand was made, or could be sustained, we are not advised, and have not been able to discern. The provision for “struck juries,” made in Code, § 4635, had application to civil causes only. The absence of one jury serving the court trying this defendant, in the performance of its duty in the trial of another case, warranted the court in directing the summoning of the talesman to complete the jury to try this defendant. — Code, § 7272.

[130]*130After a careful review, we find no prejudicial (to defendant) error in respect of instructions, special or general, given by the court to the jury.

Affirmed.

Simpson, Anderson, and Sayre, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN, J.

Under the influence of Carter v. State, 107 Ala. 146, 18 South. 232, it must be held that the trial court properly submitted to the jury the inquiry whether the language attributed to the defendant by the state’s witness, Mrs. Sharp, was, under the circumstances attending its utterance, within Code, § 6217, insulting. It cannot be ruled that, under all the circumstances, the language-so attributed was not susceptible of a meaning vulgar or lewd, and hence, to a female, insulting.

This trial was had in March, 1909. The defendant demanded a “struck jury.” It was refused him. Upon what authority this demand was made, or could be sustained, we are not advised, and have not been able to discern. The provision for “struck juries,” made in Code, § 4635, had application to civil causes only. The absence of one jury serving the court trying this defendant, in the performance of its duty in the trial of another case, warranted the court in directing the summoning of the talesman to complete the jury to try this defendant. — Code, § 7272.

[130]*130After a careful review, we find no prejudicial (to defendant) error in respect of instructions, special or general, given by the court to the jury.

Affirmed.

Simpson, Anderson, and Sayre, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 So. 910, 168 Ala. 128, 1910 Ala. LEXIS 516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turney-v-state-ala-1910.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack