Flanagan v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to tho Circuit Court of Wilcox. Tried before the 'Hon. E. Pickens. 1. The- .ancient rule was, that-.jn iconics, particularly of .the . higher grades, tho prisoner was not permitted to njake consent? which operated to Ms prejudice. The modern rule has relaxed ¡the principle, only so far as to allow him by express consent to ■waive any of his rights. 2. In this case the defendant was indicted for two distinct .felonies in one indictment.
Read the full summary
Error to tho Circuit Court of Wilcox. Tried before the 'Hon. E. Pickens. 1. The- .ancient rule was, that-.jn iconics, particularly of .the . higher grades, tho prisoner was not permitted to njake consent? which operated to Ms prejudice. The modern rule has relaxed ¡the principle, only so far as to allow him by express consent to ■waive any of his rights. 2. In this case the defendant was indicted for two distinct .felonies in one indictment. It is not material that the several .counts charge him with an offence of the same grade against the same person. The law must regard them as distinct…
1Opinion of the CourtChilton, J.
The record of the conviction of the plaintiff In error is in a Very confused state. No plea or issue appears in it, nor does it appear that he was ever 'arraigned. The only-evidence afforded as to the issue tried by the jury, is found in the judgment entry, which recites that “ the defendants came in their proper person, also their attorneys; and the defendant, O. H.-P. Wright, demurred to the first count in the bill of indictment, which having been argued by counsel, is overruled by ‘the court. The State then moved that the defendant be tried 'on the first count in 'the indictment, and that…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Foster v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1864
- Iverson v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Shiff v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887