Ex Parte Horton
Supreme Court of Alabama
1Opinion of the Court
We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals, 456 So.2d 1117, that the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed. We reach this result on different grounds, however, because we disagree with the Court of Criminal Appeals' conclusion that the indictment was not subject to the demurrer interposed by the defendant.
The indictment was subject to demurrer because it did not specify anything about the forged check which Horton was charged with possessing: the indictment did not set out the amount, the payee, the drawer of the check, nor the time or place when Horton possessed it. The…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Dingler v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1981
- Howard v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1982
- Duin v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1972
- Lane v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1982
- Ex Parte AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1941
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Doster v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2010
- Johnson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1991
- Hines v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1987
- G.E.G. v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 2010
- Montez Spradley v. State of Alabama.Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.