Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

121 So. 692

Smith v. State

Decided April 2, 1929

Relies on Ex Parte Tanner

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1929-04-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 1990

21 state decisions

6019291930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

RICE, J.

¶1 Appellant was regularly indicted and tried for the offense denounced by Code 1923, § 5411. The jury trying the case returned a verdict as follows: “We the jury find the defendant guilty as charged in. the indictment.” Whereupon, and over appellant’s protest, the trial judge proceeded to “fix- the punishment” and to sentence the appellant. This was in contravention of the" plain terms of the statute (Code 1923, § 5411, supra), which are that one convicted, as appellant, .be punished (within certain limits) “at the discretion of the jury.’’ (Italics ours.) And for this unauthorized and erroneous action of the court, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded. Code 1923, § 5411; Ex parte I-Ieabecn Tanner, 219 Ala. 7,121 So-. 423.

¶2 No other questions are apparent.

¶3 Reversed and remanded.

/121/so/692 · .json · Public domain