Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

37 Ala. 152

Cawley v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided January 15, 1861

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1861-01-15

Feom the Circuit Court of Dallas. Tried before the Hon. Porter King. . The indictment in this case contained two counts; the first charging the prisoner with larceny from “a dwelling-house and the second, with larceny from “ a shop.” The jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and the court thereupon sentenced the prisoner to confinement in the penitentiary for three years.

Relies on Kane v. People · Johnson v. State · Mose v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1861-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 1973

15 state decisions

30186118701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

A. J. WALKER, C. J.

¶1The first point made in this case is, that, as the sentence is copied into the transcript before the indictment, it must be inferred, that the sentence of the court preceded the finding of the indictment; and that, therefore, the accused was tried and sentenced without an-indictment. We cannot sustain this point.

¶2[2-3.] It is objected, that a general verdict of guilty is-not sufficient, where distinct offenses, as- those of larceny from a dwelling-house and larceny from-a shop, are alleged' in different counts. After an elaborate and careful review, of the authorities, we feel safe in announcing the conclusion, that “ two offenses committed by the same person,may be included in the same indictment, where they are of the same general nature, and belong to the same family of crimes, and where the mode of trial and nature of punishment are also the sameand also, that a general verdict of guilty, where such offenses are joined, is no ground for an arrest of judgment, or of error, where the sentence pronounced does not impose a greater punishment than-that-*154prescribed for one offense. Our conclusion is fully sustained by the authorities cited below. Johnson v. State, 29 Ala. 62; 1 Arch. Crim. Pl. 95, and notes; Whar. Am. Cr. Law, 422 ; U. S. v. Peterson, 1 W. & M. 305 ; State v. Haney, 2N. C. Rep. 390; 1 Arch. Cr. Law, 175-6 ; Booth v. Commonwealth, 5 Met. 535; Carlton v. Com., ib. 532 ; Kane v. People, 8 Wend. 203; State v. Hooker, 17 Ver. 658; State v. Coleman, 5 Por. 32; State v. Mose, 35 Ala. 421.

¶3Judgment affirmed.

/37/ala/152 · .json · Public domain