Chisholm v. State

Decided June 15, 1868

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1868-06-15

Tried before Hon. Eobert Dougherty. The appellant was tried at the spring term, 1865, and having pleaded guilty to the indictment, the jury assessed a fine of $1,250, together with the costs, and a judgment nunc pro tunc was entered upon this verdict at the spring term, 1866. At the fall term, 1866, the defendant made a motion to vacate said judgment, and in support of this motion produced a pardon from the Governor of Alabama remitting the fine.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 2013

3 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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1The constitution confers upon the Governor the power to grant reprieves and pardons, and to remit fines and forfeitures in criminal cases, under such rules and regulations as may be provided by law. — Article 5, § 13.

¶2After the rendition of the judgment in the present ease, the Governor, under the great seal of the State, there being no restriction upon his power so to do, by any rule or regulation of law, remitted the entire fine, which destroyed the vitality of the judgment, except as to the costs. The court, therefore, on the motion of appellant, should have vacated the judgment as to the fine, but left it valid and subsisting as to the costs.

¶3The judgment of the court refusing to vacate the judgment to the extent we have indicated, is reversed and the cause remanded.