From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Huckabaa v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 20, 1922
95 So. 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)

Summary

In Huckabaa v. State, 19 Ala. App. 11, 95 So. 587, 588, this court considered the sufficiency of a verdict in the following terms: "We, the jury, find the defendant and assess a fine of $50," and concluded that the intention of the jury was clearly manifest, and that the omission of the word "guilty" from the verdict did not vitiate it.

Summary of this case from Hunter v. State

Opinion

4 Div. 726.

May 16, 1922. Rehearing Denied June 20, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court. Covington County; Arthur B. Foster, Judge.

George O. Huckabaa was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Certiorari granted by Supreme Court in Ex parte Huckabaa, 209 Ala. 4, 95 So. 42.

A. Whaley, of Andalusia, for appellant.

A judgment of guilt, in the absence of the word "guilty," is erroneous, and on direct appeal should be reversed. Where it is shown that evidence is obtained in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, such evidence should, on motion, be excluded.

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

No brief reached the Reporter.


If the intention of the jury is clearly manifested, the omission of the word "guilty" will not vitiate the verdict. The following verdict: "We, the jury, find the defendant and assess a fine of $50" — is sufficient to support a judgment of guilt. 27 R. C. L. 859, § 31.

When the court during the trial of a cause commits error in admitting testimony, and afterwards excludes it, and clearly and emphatically instructs the jury to disregard such testimony, the error is cured, unless the error has so prejudiced the jury as to be impossible of eradication. Davis v. State, 18 Ala. App. 482, 93 So. 269.

This court and the Supreme Court have recently held, in line with the long-established rule, that evidence, though illegally obtained, is admissible in evidence.

The bottle of liquor found in defendant's possession was introduced in evidence, and the jury properly took it with them in the jury room while considering this verdict. There can be no doubt about the correctness of the court's ruling on this point.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Huckabaa v. State

Court of Appeals of Alabama
Jun 20, 1922
95 So. 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)

In Huckabaa v. State, 19 Ala. App. 11, 95 So. 587, 588, this court considered the sufficiency of a verdict in the following terms: "We, the jury, find the defendant and assess a fine of $50," and concluded that the intention of the jury was clearly manifest, and that the omission of the word "guilty" from the verdict did not vitiate it.

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

Huckabaa v. State

Case Details

Full title:HUCKABAA v. STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Jun 20, 1922

Citations

95 So. 587 (Ala. Crim. App. 1922)
19 Ala. App. 11

Citing Cases

Hunter v. State

If the intention of the jury is clearly manifested, the omission of the word "guilty" will not vitiate the…

Huckabaa v. State

On May 16th the judgment of conviction was affirmed. 95 So. 587. On June 20, 1922, application for rehearing…