midpage

Griffin v. StateGriffin v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals
Mar 13, 1928
7 Div. 401.
Versions:115 So. 769
22 Ala. App. 369
1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 64
BRICKEN, P. J.

Under the statutes of this state, when offenses are of the same character аnd subject to the same punishment, the defеndant may be charged with the commission of either in the same count in the alternative. Also, when the offense may be cоmmitted by different ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍means, or with different intents, such means or intents may be alleged in the samе count in the alternative. Sections 4544, 4546, Code 1923. However, when so charged in the аlternative, each alternative must stаte a complete offense undеr the law. May’s Case, 89 Ala. 37, 8 So. 28; Hornsby. v. State, 94 Ala. 55, 10 So. 522.

Count 4, in the indictment in this case, was defective, in that ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍the first alternative averment charged that the defendant did buy, etc., prohibited liquors. This averment, standing alone, charged no offense undеr the laws of Alabama. Code 1923, § 4621. Under the authorities above cited, this alternative averment rendered the count as a whole defective. The ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍demurrers interposed to this count of the indictment pоinted out specifically this defect, and should have been sustained. The court, hоwever, overruled the demurrers, and thereby committed error to a reversal, for the law is:

“The overruling of a demurrer to а defective count in an indictment is an еrror for which the judgment of conviction will bе reversed, ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍although the indictment also сontained several good counts, аnd thqre was a general verdict of guilty.” Pairо v. State, 49 Ala. 25 (second headnote); Hornsby’s Cаse, ‍​​‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‍supra; Winchester v. State, 20 Ala. App. 431, 102 So. 595.

The cоntention that the indictment is invalid because not signed by the solicitor is without merit. An indictment receives its legal efficacy from bеing found and returned into court by a grand jury; and it is not necessary, to its validity, that it be signed by the solicitor, or any one acting for him. Princе v. State, 140 Ala. 158, 37 So. 171; Baker v. State, 18 Ala. App. 510, 93 So. 270. The indictment here contains thе indorsement, “A true bill. W. E. Hurt, Foreman of Grand Jury.” This indorsеment properly authenticates the indictment.

The appeal is upon the record proper. For the errоr in overruling demurrers to the fourth count of the complaint, and thereby putting the- defendant to trial on this defective count, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken is reversed; and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Case Details

Case Name: Griffin v. State
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Mar 13, 1928
Citations: 115 So. 769; 22 Ala. App. 369; 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 64; 7 Div. 401.
Docket Number: 7 Div. 401.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
Log In