Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

40 Ala. 72

Robin v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1866

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1866-06-15

Tried before the Hon. Wm. S. Mudd. The indictment in this case contained two counts, each describing the prisoner as “ a freedman of color f the first charging that he “ unlawfully, and with malice aforethought, did assault one Joseph W. Gillem, with the intent to murder him” ; and the second, that the assault was made “ with a stick and an axe,” and “ with the intent to kill and murder.” The defendant pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined on that plea.

Relies on Paris v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1866-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1941

3 state decisions

10186618701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 →

EYED, J.

¶1-The indictment was found at a special term of the circuit court of Tuskaloosa county, held on the 27th November, 1865. There is no bill of exceptions, and the cause is brought here on writ of error. The first count in the indictment is good. The verdict is general. The proceedings are regular, unless the failure to ask the prisoner, before sentence, what he had to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced, is erroneous ; and this question is settled adversely to the defendant in the case of Aaron & Ely v. The State, at the last term, and authorities there referred to.

¶2[2.] The defendant made a motion in arrest of judgment, and set up several distinct and sufficient grounds; but there is no bill of exceptions setting forth any evidence to support them, nor any exception to the ruling of the court on the motion. In this condition of the record, we must *74presume that the court acted correctly in overruling the motion.—See Paris v. The State, 36 Ala. 232.

¶3As there is no error in the record, let the judgment be affirmed.

/40/ala/72 · .json · Public domain