Anderson v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
The constitutional provision perpetually disfranchising a citizen is highly penal. — Ex parte Dorsey, 7 Porter, 293; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 177. Like other penal laws, therefore, it must be strictly construed. — BetUs v. Taylor, 8 Porter, 564; Gu/nter v. Leekey, 30 Ala. 597; Smith v. Causey, 22 Ala. 568. This provision, ■and the 18th section of the 4th article, specifying the causes which disqualify a person to hold office, are inprm materia, and must be construed in…
Read the full summary
The constitutional provision perpetually disfranchising a citizen is highly penal. — Ex parte Dorsey, 7 Porter, 293; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 177. Like other penal laws, therefore, it must be strictly construed. — BetUs v. Taylor, 8 Porter, 564; Gu/nter v. Leekey, 30 Ala. 597; Smith v. Causey, 22 Ala. 568. This provision, ■and the 18th section of the 4th article, specifying the causes which disqualify a person to hold office, are inprm materia, and must be construed in connection with each other; and thus ■construed, “larceny or other crime punishable by imprisonment in the…
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
The constitution of Alabama declares, that persons convicted of certain enumerated crimes shall not be permitted to register, vote, or hold office. — Art. 8, § 3. Among the crimes thus enumerated is larceny. It is not denied, in this case, that the defendant had been convicted of larceny since the adoption of the constitution of 1875, and that he af-terwards registered, and voted at the general election held in November, 1882. The precise ground of defense urged in the court below, and renewed here, was, and is, that the offense of which he had been convicted was petit larceny, and, under…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Washington v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Baker TrotterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1882
- Ex parte Joice & SmithSupreme Court of Alabama · 1889
- Gandy v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1886
- Osborne v. BanksSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983