Lacey v. State

Decided December 15, 1877

Supreme Court of Alabama · decided 1877-12-15

Tried before tbe Hon. Jas. E. Cobb. The indictment against defendant contained two counts, the first charging burglary and the second larceny. The defendant demurred to the indictment, alleging misjoinder, and other grounds. Pending the argument on the demurrer, the solicitor moved to ml. pros, the first count of the indictment, which was granted by the court against the objection of defendant.

Relies on Wooster v. State · Mose v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2006

15 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 →

STONE, J.-

¶11. The judgment of conviction in this case must be reversed, because the record fails to show that the jury were sworn. — Code of 1876, § 4765; Hicks v. The State, in manuscript.

¶22. The confession of the prisoner, given in evidence by Glenn, was not what the law calls voluntary, and therefore should not have been received. The law can not measure the degree of influence exerted upon the prisoner’s mind, by an inducement offered, or threat made. The confession, to be receivable in evidence, must be purely voluntary. — Mose v. The State, 36 Ala. 211.

¶33 4. The court did not err in allowing a nolle prosequi of *387tbe first count, (Lou Wooster v. The State, 55 Ala. 217,) nor in fixing the measure of punishment. The discretion of the jury, provided for in section 4361 of the Code of 1876, relates to the matter of super-adding a money fine.

¶4Reversed and remanded. Let the prisoner remain in custody until discharged by due course of law.