Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Ala. App. 64

94 So 786

Dunn v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided December 19, 1922

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1922-12-19

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1935

7 state decisions

Relies on Mose v. State · Whitley v. State · 17 Ala. App. 504 - McMullen v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1922-12-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*65 BRICKEN, P. J.

¶1 The indictment contained, in this record fails to show a compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 7300 of the Code 1907, which provides that, in order to find a legal indictment against a person in this state, the concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary, and, when so found, it must be indorsed “a true bill,” and the indorsement signed by the foreman. The indictment here contains no such indorsement and is in consequence not a valid indictment and will not support a conviction. This identical question has been so decided in numerous decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court. Banners v. State, 17 Ala. App. 597, 88 South. 55; McMullen v. State, 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 South. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 South. 203; Mose v. State, 35 Ala. 425. See also cases cited in Hanners v. State, supra.

¶2 On the trial ofjhis cause numerous exceptions were reserved to the rulings of the court; but as the indictment contained in the record is invalid, for the reasons above stated, there is no necessity to consider the several questions presented.

¶3 Reversed and remanded.

/19/alaapp/64 · .json · Public domain