Legal Opinion

Honeycutt v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided June 29, 1926No. 7 Div. 217PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBricken, P. J.

Section 8682 of the Code 1923 provides:

“The concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary to find an indictment; and when so found it must be indorsed ‘A true bill,’ and the indorsement signed by the foreman.”

The purported indictment contained in this record fails to show a compliance with the mandatory requirement of the statute, supra. There is no indorsement “A true bill” on the indictment. That the indorsement is necessary to a proper authentication of the indictment, and that the requirement of the statute is mandatory, has been held in many decisions of this court and the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Ex parte WinstonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
  2. Whitley v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1910
  3. McMullen v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1920
  4. Veal v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. Hill v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1924

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Layton v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Sanford v. StateAlabama Court of Appeals · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API