Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

108 Ala. 27

Simon v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1895

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1895-11-15

Tried before Hon. O. J. Semmes. The defendant was indicted and tried for the murder of Allen Robinson. The proof tended to show that defendant and deceased met casually, both being intoxicated. That they indulged in profanity and mutual abuse. Finally the defendant struck the deceased over the head with a picket he had torn from a fence at hand. Robinson died three days thereafter.

Relies on King v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 1983

9 state decisions

201895190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

HEAD J.

¶1Against the objection and exception of the defendant, the city court excused a juror, on his request, who had been regularly drawn and summoned for the trial, upon the testimony of the juror that “he was an active member of the Mobile Cadets and attended drills regularly.” By statute every member of the Alabama State Troops is exempt from jury duty daring his membership. The commanding officer of each company shall furnish each member of his command with a certificate of membership signed by such commanding officer, which shall prove such exemption in any court, but such certificate shall be revoked whenever the holder is absent from four consecutive drills or parades without good excuse, and which shall be surrendered whenever any member of the State troops is discharged from the service of the State. — Acts 1894-95, p. 793.

¶2But, the evidence docs not inform us that the "Mobile Cadets,” of which the juror was a member, was a part of the Alabama State Troops. We cannot know that any organization of persons which might take place in Mobile county, and adopt the name of Mobile Cadets, is apart of the Alabama State Troops. The evidence should have gone further and shown that the Mobile Cadets, of which the juror was a member, was a part of such troops, as was done in King v. State, 90 Ala. 612.

¶3There is no error in any of the other rulings of the court to which exceptions were reserved.

¶4For the error in excusing the juror, on the proof advanced, the judgment of the city court is reversed and the cause remanded. Let the prisoner remain in custody until discharged by due course of law.

¶5Reversed and remanded.

/108/ala/27 · .json · Public domain