O'NEAL v. StateO'NEAL v. State
Thе appellant was indicted and tried for intentional murder in violation of
I
The appellant maintains that on retrial the state should have either reindicted him for manslaughter or amended the original indictment so that it specified the precise charge for which he was being prosecuted. By virtue of the Double Jeopardy Clause оf the Fifth Amendment, a conviction on a lesser included offense bars any subsequent retrial of a defendant on the greatеr offense, since the conviction on the lesser included offense acts as an acquittal of the higher offense. Ex parte Bayne, 375 So.2d 1239 (Ala. 1979). Thus, оn retrial, the appellant could only have been convicted of manslaughter. The appellant contends that since he could no longer have been found guilty of intentional murder, the state should have amended the indictment or reindicted him. It is argued that the indictment charging him with murder lacked the degree of specificity required to inform him of the offense for whiсh he was being charged.
“‘The indictment is for legal purposes, sufficient notice to the defendant that he may be called to defend the lesser included offenses.’ Walker v. United States, 135 [U.S.] App.D.C. 280, 418 F.2d 1116 (1969). ‘(A)n indictment charging a felony or the highest grade of the offense by operation of law charges every lesser offense includеd in the one charged.’ Kitchens v. State, 27 Ala. App. 336, 172 So. 297 (1937). This does not deny a defendant his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the аccusation against him. Holesome v. State, 40 Wis.2d 95, 161 N.W.2d 283 (1968); People v. Cooke, 186 Colo. 44, 525 P.2d 426 (1974); State v. Daniels, 223 Kan. 266, 573 P.2d 607 (1977).”
See also
The appellant also argues that the indictment was defective because it failed to indicate whether he was being convicted of “ordinary manslaughter” or “manslaughter involving the use of a deadly weapon.” It is well settled law that an indictment must inform an accused of all essential elements of the offense charged. Hardy v. State, 409 So.2d 996 (Ala.Cr.App. 1982). There is, however, no offense known as “manslaughter involving the use of a deadly weapon.” Section
II
The appellant also asserts that the trial court erred in denying his request for rе-arraignment. The record indicates, however, that the appellant was properly arraigned.
“THE COURT: All right, Mr. Graham [attorney for appellant] and Mr. O‘Neal, the indictment, the charge that you‘re facing today is that of manslaughter. You were originally indicted for murder, but at your trial last year, you were convicted of manslaughter under Count 1 in the indictment, and that is the charge that you face today, of manslaughtеr, which carries a punishment of not less than 1, nor more than 10 years in the penitentiary.
“MR. GRAHAM: Well, if that‘s to be taken as an arraignment, we plead not guilty. . . .”
As this court observed in Headley v. State, 51 Ala. App. 148, 151, 283 So.2d 458 (Ala.Cr.App. 1973), the “common law formalities attendant on arraignment are no longer required. Boyd v. State, 41 Ala. App. 507, 138 So.2d 60 (1962). Its only purpose is to obtain from the accused his answer or plea to the indictment.” See also, Carroll v. State, 445 So.2d 952 (Ala.Cr.App. 1983); Watts v. State, 460 So.2d 204 (Ala. 1983). We hold that the arraignment sufficiently advisеd the appellant of the offense with which he was charged.
III
The appellant also contends that the court committed reversible error with respect to certain evidentiary rulings made during the course of trial. Specifically, he аrgues that the state should not have been permitted to use an unauthenticated and irrelevant court file from a separate case to impeach him. In addition, the appellant maintains that the court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a set of brass knuckles which allegedly belonged to the decedent. In support of these contentions appellant comments:
“As to the questions and issues raised in No. II of the [issues presented], relating to the trial court‘s obvious errоrs in the aforesaid admission of evidence offered by the state relating to the various court files (TR 306, 356 391) and the court‘s refusal to admit the material evidence relating to the brass knuckles, Appellant‘s Exhibit ‘2’ for identification, Appellant would suffice [sic] to point out that the appellant made timely objections to these rulings by the court and when considered separately and severally, one will readily see that the effects of these evidentiary rulings by the court were very determinal [sic] to the appellant and are reversible error in and of themselves.”
This court observed in Vinzant v. State, 462 So.2d 1037, 1039 (Ala.Cr.App. 1984), that the Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure require that all arguments presented in an appellate brief have a list of authorities in support оf the issue presented.
The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
All the Judges concur.