Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

109 Ala. 50

Harden v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1895

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1895-11-15

<p> Prosecution for Gaming, </p> <p>1. Warrant of arrest; by vihom issued. — Under the provisions of the act establishing the Criminal Court of Pike county, as under the statute regulating proceedings in the County Court (Sess. Acts 1888-89, p. 631, § 3; Code, § 4201), a warrant of arrest, returnable before that court, may be issued by a justice of the peace.</p> <p>2. Ruling 'on motion for new trial in criminal case; not revievjable.— This court has no jurisdiction to review rulings on motions for new trials in criminal cases.</p> <p>3. Confession; when will not authorize a conviction. — A mere confession will not authorize a conviction, unless, independent of the confession, the evidence is sufficient to authorize the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense has been committed.</p>

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1925

8 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““A mere confession will not authorize a conviction, unless, independent of the confession, the evidence is sufficient to authorize the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the offense has been committed.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 17 Ala. App. 167 - Braxton v. State

Relies on Walker v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1895-11-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COLEMAN, J.

¶1The defendant was convicted of gaming on Sunday. The defendant moved to arrest the judgment, upon the ground that the prosecution was commenced upon affidavit made and warrant issued by a justice of the peace, returnable to the Criminal Court of Pike county. The statutes authorize it, and,the question has been adjudicated.— Walker v. The State, 89 Ala. 74.

¶2This court has no jurisdiction to review motions for new trials in criminal cases. If the defendant had requested the court m writing to give the affirmative charge and it had been refused, the refusal would have been error. The testimony in the record is insufficient to show the corpus, that there were probable grounds for believing the fact that the offense had been committed. A mere confession will not authorize a conviction, unless, independent of the confession, the evidence is sufficient to authorize the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt *51that the offense has been committed. In the condition of the record, the defendant must apply to the executive department for relief.

¶3Affirmed.

/109/ala/50 · .json · Public domain