Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Affirmed and remanded for proper sentence · Decided 1920-01-13
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 1980
12 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.
¶1
[1]
When this cause was called for trial on April 1, 1919, defendant objected to being put upon trial, upon the ground that certain witnesses, which he had ordered to he subpoenaed, had not been served or the subpoenas issued. The judgment entry shows that the court overruled the objection, hut there is nothing in the record tending to show that defendant offered any evidence in support of the objection. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, this court must presume that the trial court made proper investigation and properly exercised its discretion, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. Sanderson v. State, 168 Ala. 109, 53 South. 109.
¶2
[2]
The offense charged in the indictment was committed before the spring term, 1918, of the circuit court of Winston county, and the case was tried April 1, 1919. Sentence was for five years in the penitentiary. This sentence was error. The defendant should have been sentenced in accord with an act of the Legislature of 1919 (Acts 1919, p. 148). This act was construed and applied in the case of Rogers v. State, ante, p. 175, 83 South. 359, present term.
¶3
[3]
After carefully considering the evidence in this record, we fail to find facts sufficient to corroborate the testimony of the woman, who alone testified to the facts constituting the crime with which defendant is charged. If the crime was committed with the consent of the principal witness, the defendant would have been entitled to the general charge. Code 1907, §§ 7878, 7127. It is true, the woman testified that at each recurrent act the defendant used threats and intimidations, and that she yielded to him through fear, but the rape was too often repeated and continued too long without 'outcry for full credence to- be given to the statement. But this question is not presented in such way as that it can be considered by this court on appeal, but may be a proper case for the consideration of the pardoning power.
¶4
We find no error in the record that would warrant a reversal of the judgment of conviction, but, the sentence being erroneous, the cause will be remanded for a proper sentence. , -
¶5
Judgment of conviction affirmed, and cause remanded for proper sentence.
