Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

205 Ala. 665

89 So 55

Johnson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided May 12, 1921

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1921-05-12

<p>1. Criminal law <&wkey;l 104(3) — Transcript should . not contain order for special venire.</p> <p>Under Acts 1915, p. 708, amending Code 1907, § 0256, transcript on appeal in a homicide case should not contain the order of the court for the special venire and fixing the date of the trial of the defendant; no question thereon being raised in the trial court.</p> <p>2. Criminal law &wkey;>l090(l6) — No review of motion for new trial, in absence of bill of exceptions.</p> <p>A motion for new trial in a homicide case, because one of 12 jurors that tried ease was member of grand jury that returned the indictment, cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions.</p> <p>3. Homicide <&wkey;335 — Confusing order as to drawing of jurors in capital case held not reversible error.</p> <p>In a homicide case, where defendant was convicted of first degree murder and his punishment fixed at death, a confusing allusion in an order setting the case for trial as to the jurors constituting the venire held not reversible error.</p> <p>Miller and Sayre, JJ., dissenting.</p> <p><©=3For oilier oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in alll Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes</p>

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1934

8 state decisions

Relies on Paitry v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1921-05-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McCLELLAN, J.

¶1 [1-3] The appellant has been adjudged guilty of murder in the first degree, and his punishment fixed at death. His appeal is on the record only; no bill of exceptions appearing in the transcript. Under the act of September 22, 1915, amending Code, § 6256, the transcript “should not have contained the order of the court for the special venire, or fixing the date for the trial of the defendant, no question thereon being raised in the trial court.” Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 South. 36. The motion for a new trial cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. Nevertheless, had the question been appropriately raised in the court below and presented here, it is quite evident that no reversible error could be pronounced as for the confusing allusion in a part of the order of June 30, 1920, to the “regular” jurors drawn for the week during which this defendant’s trial was set. The record is self-correcting in that respect; and the defendant was accorded a special venire as required by law.

¶2 No error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

¶3 Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
/205/ala/665 · .json · Public domain