From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Webb v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 9, 1922
18 Ala. App. 477 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)

Summary

In Webb v. State, 154 Ark. 67, 242 S.W. 380 (1922), in a murder prosecution, no request had been made for the court to instruct the jury that if they found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree they were entitled to fix his punishment at death or life imprisonment.

Summary of this case from Dimery v. State

Opinion

8 Div. 839.

May 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C Brickell, Judge.

A.B. Webb was convicted of violating the Prohibition Law, and he appealed. Reversed and remanded.

Omitting formal charging part, the second count of the indictment is as follows:

After September 30, 1919, A.B. Webb, whose Christian name is to the grand jury otherwise unknown, did have in his possession a still, apparatus, appliance or a device or substitute therefor, to be used for the purpose of manufacturing prohibited liquors or beverages, contrary to law.

The demurrers raised the proposition discussed in the opinion.

Betts Richardson, of Huntsville, for appellant.

A verdict specifying the count on which it is based is an acquittal as to the other count. 15 Ala. App. 180, 72 So. 757; 91 Ala. 32, 10 So. 30. A penal act does not become effective until after 60 days from its approval, unless otherwise specified therein, and the second count was demurrable for a failure to allege that the offense was committed 90 days after the passage of the act. 17 Ala. App. 464, 86 So. 172; 17 Ala. App. 504, 86 So. 175; 159 Ala. 71, 48 South, 864, 133 Am. St. Rep. 20; 55 Ala. 167; section 7805, Code 1907.

Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Brief of counsel did not reach the Reporter.


The first count in the indictment charged the defendant with manufacturing liquor after January 25, 1919. A verdict was rendered by the jury, specifically convicting the defendant under the second count. This had the effect of acquitting defendant of the charge embraced in the first count. Brown v. State, 15 Ala. App. 180, 72 So. 757; Walker v. State, 91 Ala. 32, 10 So. 30.

The indictment, having been returned less than three years from November 30, 1919, covered a period of time during which it was not a violation of law to possess a still, etc. This necessitated an averment as to time, in the absence of which the second count was fatally defective. Laminack et al. v. State (Ala.App. 7 Div. 774) 92 So. 505; McReynolds v. State (Ala.App.) 89 So. 825; Clark v. State, ante, p. 217, 90 So. 16; Isbell v. ante, p. 223, 90 So. 55.

Ante, p. 400.

Ante, p. 173.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Webb v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
May 9, 1922
18 Ala. App. 477 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)

In Webb v. State, 154 Ark. 67, 242 S.W. 380 (1922), in a murder prosecution, no request had been made for the court to instruct the jury that if they found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree they were entitled to fix his punishment at death or life imprisonment.

Summary of this case from Dimery v. State
Case details for

Webb v. State

Case Details

Full title:WEBB v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: May 9, 1922

Citations

18 Ala. App. 477 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)
93 So. 215

Citing Cases

Dimery v. State

" As may be expected, Dimery says this is plain error and the State says it is not. Dimery relies upon Rowe…

Dean v. State

Code 1923, §§ 4534, 4928. Prior to passage of the Act of 1927 (Gen.Acts 1927, p. 554) the facts alleged did…