Jackson v. State

Decided November 15, 1904

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1904-11-15

Tried before the Hon. H. J. Lancaster. The prosecution in this case was commenced by an affidavit purporting to be made before the judge of the county court of Elmore county, charging the appellant, Phill Jackson, with having committed an assault and battery upon one Lindsey Jeter. It is shown by the record that the defendant interposed a plea in abatement to the affidavit and warrant, upon the ground that they were insufficient for the institution of the prosecution.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““While the record discloses a plea in abatement to the affidavit, upon which the defendant was arrested and tried, it does not show any disposition whatever of the plea. The judgment entry affirmatively shows that issue was joined upon the plea of not guilty, which excludes any assumption that the issue was joined on the plea in abatement.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Baker v. State

Relies on Dannelley v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1904-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1969

7 state decisions

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 →

TYSON, J.

¶1While the record discloses a plea in abatement to the affidavit, upon which the defendant was arrested and tried, it does not show any disposition whatever of the plea. The judgment entry affirmatively shows that issue was joined upon the plea of not guilty, which excludes any assumption that the issue was joined on the plea in abatement. There is, therefore, no room for the application of the principle that the finding of the court was erroneous in failing to respond to the issue presented by the plea in abatement. — Dannelley v. State, 130 Ala. 132, 135.

¶2No error appearing on the record, the judgment of conviction must be affirmed.

¶3Affirmed.