Helums v. State

Decided February 11, 1930

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1930-02-11

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Being separately indicted, the defendant is entitled to a separate trial, and a joint trial with another without the consent of the defendant or a waiver of the right by him appearing of record is error and cause for reversal. Martin v. State , 19 Ala. App. 432 , 97 So. 768 .”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 443 So. 2d 1371 - Holsemback v. State

Relies on 19 Ala. App. 432 - Baker v. State · 19 Ala. App. 432 - Martin v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-02-11

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently March 1986

15 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.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SAMFORD, J.

¶1 This appeal is on the record which discloses that this defendant was alone indicted and tried jointly with another separately indicted and charged with the same offense. There is nothing in the record to show that the joint trial was with the consent of defendant or that he had waived the right to a separate trial. Being separately indicted, the defendant is entitled to a separate trial, and a joint trial with another without the consent of the defendant or a waiver of the right by him appearing of record is error and cause for reversal. Martin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 432, 97 So. 768.

¶2 Reversed and remanded.