Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

129 Ala. 66

Mooring v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided November 15, 1900

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1900-11-15

Tried before the lion. A. A. Evaxs. The appellant in this case was indicted and tried for burglary and was sentenced to the penitentiary for five years. The only question presented for review on the present appeal is the ruling of the trial court in the organization of the jury.

Relies on Smith v. State · Roberts v. State · Sparks v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 1985

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

30190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 →

HARALSON, J.

¶1The juror, Edwards, had been sworn; the jury for the trial had been niade up from the regular juries in attendance for the week, and said juror had 'been accepted by the State and the defendant; the indictment had been read to the jury, and the defendant pleaded not guilty thereto. After this, the juror 'Should not have been set aside on the application of the State and challenged for the cause stated, and liis place filled by another, without the consent rof the defendant.—Smith v. The State, 55 Ala. 1; Sparks v. The State, 59 Ala. 82; Rash v. The Sate, 61 Ala. 90; Roberts v. The State, 68 Ala. 515; Henry v. The State, 77 Ala. 75; Daniels v. The State, 88 Ala. 220.

¶2As appears, the trial was proceeded with, without objection on tlie part of the defendant, with the jury as completed by the substitution of another in the place of the juror withdrawn and "challenged. If, under the facts stated, the defendant was placed in jeopardy before the withdrawal of said juror, and his withdrawal operated a discharge of defendant, if former jeopardy had been properly pleaded, still, the defendant did not plead his alleged former jeopardy; and, if it existed and. might have been pleaded, it cannot be here, for the first, time raised. Former jeopardy must be specially pleaded, and cannot he given in evidence under the general issue.—Baysinger v. The State, 77 Ala. 60; DeArman v. The State, Ib. 10.

¶3Whether by proceeding with the trial, without ob*69jection by defendant, after, as alleged, -lie lrad been previously put in jeopardy, be did not waive tbe privilege of pleading that fact, thereafter, is a question we do not care at tliis time consider or decide.

¶4For tbe error indicated, let tbe judgment and sentence of tbe circuit court be reversed.

¶5Reversed and remanded.

/129/ala/66 · .json · Public domain