Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

16 Ala. App. 7

74 So 843

Daley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided March 23, 1917

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1917-03-23

<p>Jury <&wkey;31(5) — Bight to Trial by Jury — Statute — Constitutionality.</p> <p>Acts 1915, p. 940, requiring defendant indicted for misdemeanor to file with the clerk of the court a written demand for trial by jury, is not violative of Const. 1901, § 6, guaranteeing in all criminal prosecutions by indictment that accused shall have a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is committed, merely because it requires the demand to be in writing.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cabes, see Jury, Cent. Dig. § 208.]</p>

Relies on Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General · Connelly v. State · 15 Ala. App. 204 - Mulligan v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1917-03-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1977

7 state decisions

301917192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

BBOWN, P. J.

¶1 The appellant contends that the act approved September 28, 1915 (Acts 1915, p. 940), in so far as it requires tbe defendant indicted for a misdemeanor to file with the clerk of the court a written demand for trial by jury, is violative of section 6 of the Constitution of 1901, guaranteeing in all criminal prosecutions by indictment the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is committed, because it requires the demand to be made in writing. This contention is fully answered in tbe following cases: Alford v. State ex rel. Attorney General, 170 Ala. 178, 54 South. 213, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1093; Connelly v. State, 60 Ala. 89, 31 Am. Rep. 34; Ireland v. State, 11 Ala. App. 155, 65 South. 443; Frazier v. State, 11 Ala. App. 285, 66 South. 879.

¶2 There was evidence before the court authorizing the conclusion announced in the judgment of guilt, and a new trial was properly denied. Mulligan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 204, 72 South. 761.

¶3 Affirmed.

/16/alaapp/7 · .json · Public domain