Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

46 Ala. 227

Slocovitch v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1871-06-15

Tried before Hon. C. F. Moulton. The case is fully stated in the opinion. Neither the docket nor transcript shows the name of appellant’s counsel.

Relies on Sartorious v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1971

4 state decisions

2018711880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

PECK, 0. J.

¶1At the last February term of the city court of Mobile, the appellant was indicted for selling ■vinous and spiritous liquors without a license, and contrary to law.

¶2Before the close of the term, he was arrested on a capias, issued for that purpose, and entered into an undertaking of bail, with two sureties, before the sheriff, for his appearance at tbe then present term of said court, and from term to term, until discharged by due course of law.

¶3During tbe said term, the accused was called, and failing to appear, a judgment to si was entered against him and his sureties; thereupon, on motion, the solicitor was permitted to proceed with the trial, without the appearance of the accused, and in his absence. The jury found him *228guilty, and assessed a fine against him of fifty dollars, and a judgment was rendered for that sum and the costs of the prosecution. From this judgment the accused appeals to this court. The judgment must be reversed. In this State from the beginning, and, so far as we know, without exception, the practice has been to allow no one to be tried for an offense, whether for a felony or misdemeanor, in his absence. Section eighth of our bill of rights declares, “That in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to be heard by himself and counsel, or either; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; to have a copy thereof; to be confronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process, for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and in all prosecutions by indictment or information, a speedy public trial, by an impartial jury of the county or district, in which the offense was committed; and that he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, or be deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by due process of law.”

¶4To try a party in his absence, in such a case, is to deprive him of many of the rights and privileges secured to him by this section of the bill of rights.

¶5In this case, the trial was had, not only in the absence of the accused, but also without any plea or issue either of law or fact.

¶6There can be no trial on the merits, in a criminal case, until the defendant has pleaded not guilty, or this plea has been entered for him by the court. — 1 vol. Bishop’s Crim. Prac. § 468; Sartorious v. The State, 24 Miss. 602. Section 4169 of the Revised Code provides, that “if a defendant, when arraigned, refuses or neglects to plead, or stands mute, the court must cause the plea of not guilty to be entered for him.”

¶7This shows the necessity of the personal presence of the defendant, on a criminal trial, and that no trial can be had in his absence. If absent, he cannot be said to refuse or neglect to plead, or to stand mute; and it is only when he refuses or neglects to plead, or stands mute, that the court can cause the plea of not guilty to be entered for him.

¶8*229Let the judgment of the court below be reversed, and the cause be remanded for further proceedings.

/46/ala/227 · .json · Public domain