Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

43 Ala. 323

Ex parte Whitaker

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1869

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1869-06-15

Petition by William Whitaker (f. m.) for writ of habeas corpus, or such other remedial process as might secure his discharge from custody, on a charge of “ an assault upon -, with intent to murder him,” the Hon. J. P. O’Connor, judge of probate, having refused the same.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1947

9 state decisions

20186918701880189019001910192019301940decided

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 judgment of the judge of probate must be affirmed. The transcript shows enough to remand the petitioner into the custody of the sheriff.

¶2The indictment is clearly defective, and, no doubt, a demurrer to it would be sustained. It should have stated the name of the person assaulted. The original complaint states the name of person assaulted, and. the indictment has a blank for the name, which, by mistake, was probably omitted, to be inserted either by the solicitor who prepared the indictment, or by the foreman of the grand jury who found it.

¶3By § 4314 of the Revised Code, no assignment of errors is necessary in criminal cases, but this court must look to the whole record, and render such judgment on the record as the law demands.

¶4*325Taking the whole record together, we think enough appears to retain the accused in custody until the next circuit court, which can either discharge the party, or permit the defective indictment to be ndl prossed, and order another one to be preferred, or, the present indictment may be amended, by the consent of the accused. A defect in an indictment is not a sufficient ground to discharge an accused party, on habeas corpus, in vacation.

¶5The judgment of the court below is affirmed, at the costs of appellant, and his sureties upon the appeal bond.

/43/ala/323 · .json · Public domain