History
  • No items yet
midpage
Odom v. State
101 So. 531
| Ala. Ct. App. | 1924
|
Check Treatment

The appellant was convicted for violation of the prohibition laws.

The indictment named the defendant as Burrell Odom, and he interposed a plea of misnomer, and averred that his name was Burl Odam. The demurrer to the plea was properly sustained on the ground that the names Burl Odam and Burrell Odom are idem sonans. The following words have been held idem sonans: "Booth and Boothe," Jackson's Case, 74 Ala. 26; "Burdet and Boudet," "Boredet and Bouredet," Aaron's Case, 37 Ala. 106; "Edmundson and Edminson," Edmundson's Case, 17 Ala. 179, 52 Am. Dec. 169.

The defendant interposed a plea of former jeopardy, setting up that he had been heretofore convicted of the same offense in the federal court. Demurrer to the plea was properly sustained. It has many times been held by this court that a prosecution in the federal courts for violation of the National Prohibition Act is not a bar to a prosecution for a violation of the state prohibition laws based upon the same transaction. Gilbert v. State, 19 Ala. App. 104, 95 So. 502; Gamlin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 119,95 So. 505.

There is no bill of exceptions. The record discloses no error. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: Odom v. State
Court Name: Alabama Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 5, 1924
Citation: 101 So. 531
Docket Number: 7 Div. 920.
Court Abbreviation: Ala. Ct. App.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.