Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

105 Ala. 117

Brown v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1894

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1894-11-15

Tried before the Hon. Thomas M. Arrington. The appellant was indicted, tried and and convicted upon two separate indictments, charging him with petit larceny. The two cases involve identically the same rulings, and on' appeal to this court are submitted together. On August 20, 1894, there was a warrant sworn out before a justice of the peace of Montgomery county, charging the defendant, Brown, with the larceny of several articles at diffierent times.

Relies on Foster v. State · Nicholson v. State ex rel. Collins · Ex parte Pruitt & Harper

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1894-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1941

9 state decisions

50189419001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1HARALSON; J.

¶2It is conceded, that the warrant of arrest, sued out before the justice, on which defendant was arraigned and tried by him and bound over tu the grand jury, had reference to several distinct petit larcenies, having no connection with each other; that no one of the charges constituted grand larceny; that the grand jury found for these same offenses three separate and distinct bills of indictment, two of them being the cases now before us on these two transcripts; and that, on the third, defendant was tried in the city court and acquitted on his plea of former jeopardy before the justice, such as is interposed as a defense in each of these cases.

¶3The plea of former jeopardy, as pleaded in these two cases, was a good defense to the indictments in each, not less so than the same plea was to the other and third *120indictment, on which, defendant was acquitted; and the replications of the solicitor were no answers to said pleas.

¶4The defendant when brought before the justice under said warrant, should have been tried by him for one or the other of the offenses with which he was charged, and by proper procedure, he might have been held and tried for the others. It was beyond the power and jurisdiction of the justice, after trial had, to merge the several petit larcenies, to make one grand larceny out of them, as he attempted to do, and bind the defendant over for. that offense; and it was equally beyond his power to bind the defendant over to the grand jury, to answer for any one or more ■ of the several distinct misdemeanors with which he was charged in said affidavit and warrant, and of which the justice had jurisdiction to finally try and punish him. The demurrer of defendant to the replication should have been sustained.—Ex parte Pruitt & Harper, 99 Ala. 227; Ex parte Crawlin, 92 Ala. 101; Foster v. The State, 88 Ala. 182; Nicholson v. The State, 72 Ala. 178.

¶5The judgment and sentence in each case is reversed and set aside, and an order will be here entered, discharging defendant from said prosecutions.

¶6Reversed, and defendant discharged.

/105/ala/117 · .json · Public domain