Foster v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Appeal from Circuit Court of Pickens. Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith. • The indictment in this case was framed under section 3580 of the Revised Code, for resisting officer in execution of process. The second count, under which the conviction was had, charged that “Joseph S. Foster did; knowingly and willfully, resist an officer in attempting to execute a legal process against Monroe Clark, charged with burglary,” against the peace, &c.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Circuit Court of Pickens. Tried before the Hon. Luther R. Smith. • The indictment in this case was framed under section 3580 of the Revised Code, for resisting officer in execution of process. The second count, under which the conviction was had, charged that “Joseph S. Foster did; knowingly and willfully, resist an officer in attempting to execute a legal process against Monroe Clark, charged with burglary,” against the peace, &c. Defendant having pleaded not guilty and gone to trial on that plea, the State introduced one' R. G. Barker, who was permitted, against objection of…
1Opinion of the CourtPeck, C. J.
The judgment in this case must be reversed. The charge of the court was a clear invasion of the province of the jury. It was a charge upon the effect *646of the testimony, and was given without being required by either of the parties. — Revised Code, § 2678.
[Note. — The opinion in this case was delivered at the June term, 1871.1
The evidence, if believed, did not prove that McCartney was a deputy sheriff, or other legal officer.
The sheriff testified that he had never appointed him a deputy sheriff in any way pointed out by law. Had not specially deputed him as deputy sheriff, to execute the papers…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Amos v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Winford v. State.Alabama Court of Appeals · 1917