Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

147 Ala. 140

Wells v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 6, 1906

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1906-06-06

Heard before Hon. W. T. Lawler. The defendant was indicted at the February term, 1905, of the Madison Circuit court for disturbing an an assemblage of people met for a religious worship. The case was returnable to the county court of said Madison county and was tried.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In cases of felony the prisoner must be [not is entitled to be] personally present when the jury return their verdict , and to support a conviction the record must affirmatively declare his presence. Hughes' case, [State v. Hughes] 2 Ala. 102 , 36 Am.Dec. 411 ; Eliza's case, [Eliza v. State] 39 Ala. 693 ; Waller's case, 40 Ala. [325 ] 326 . And in a case of felony it is error to allow the verdict to be received by the clerk during a recess of the court in the absence of the prisoner, even though this be done with the consent of his counsel. Waller's case, supra.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 31 Ala. App. 91 - Lee v. State

“The foregoing rule relates to the trials of misdemeanors, as well as felonies, except the defendant may waive the right to be present when the verdict is returned and other formalities connected with the return and reception thereof in misdemeanor cases.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 31 Ala. App. 91 - Lee v. State

Relies on Waller v. State · Cook v. State · Ned v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1906-06-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 1994

23 state decisions

601906191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 →

ANDERSON, J.

¶1In all criminal cases the verdict of the jury must be rendered in open court and in the presence of the accused. In cases of felony the prisoner must be personally present when the jury return their verdict, and to support a conviction the record must affirmatively declare his presence. — Hughes’ case, 2 Ala. 102, 36 Am. Dec. 411; Eliza's Case, 39 Ala. 693; Waller’s Case, 40 Ala. 326. And in a case of felony it is error to allow the verdict to- be received by the clerk during a recess of the court in the absence of the prisoner, even though this be done with the consent of his counsel.— Waller’s Case, supra. It would seem that when the verdict, has been received in the. absence of the defendant, and the jury is discharged, it is the equivalent of an acquittal. Hayes v. State, 107 Ala. 1, 18 South. 172; Ned v. State, 7 Port. 187; Cook v. State, 60 Ala. 39, 31 Am. Rep. 31. The action of the court in reconvening the jury after the defendant appeared in court and after they had dispersed, but before having the verdict read, did not cure the error.

¶2*143The foregoing rule relates to the trials of misdemeanors, as well as felonies, except the defendant may waive the right to be present when the verdict is returned and other formalities connected with the return and reception thereof in misdemeanor cases. Brown v. State. 63 Ala. 97. But in the case at bar the record affirmatively shows that the defendant did not consent to an informal return and reception of the verdict, and as the verdict was illegally received, it operated as a discharge of the defendant. The judgment of the county court is reversed and one is here rendered discharging the defendant.

¶3: Reversed and rendered.

Weakley, G. J., and Dowdell and Denson, JJ,, concur.
/147/ala/140 · .json · Public domain