Case ID: ala-app_17/html/0694-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(85 South. 926)
    JACKSON et al. v. STATE.
    (4 Div. 656.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 30, 1920.)
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Barbour County; J. S. Williams, Judge. Tobe Jackson and others stand indicted by the grand jury of Barbour county on a charge of murder' in the first degree. Petition was filed for writ of habeas corpus, praying that the defendants be allowed bail pending their trial. From an order denying bail, petitioners appeal.
    Reversed and remanded, with directions.
    Jones, Thomas & Jones, of Montgomery, Comer & Son and Ghauncey Sparks, all of Eufaula, and Farmer, Merrill & Farmer, of Dothan, for appellant.
    Counsel discuss the evidence, and insist that it would not justify a. conviction of the highest offense, and hence that the defendants were entitled to bail under section 16, Const. 1901. In support of their contention they cite 34 Ala. 270; 63 Ala. '234; 78 Ala. 414; 95 Ala. 22, 11 South. 14; 11 Ala. App. 70, 65 South. 857.
    J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., and McDowell & McDowell, of Eufaula, for the State.
    The court trying the case heard the witnesses, and his judgment will not be disturbed, unless clearly erroneous. 5 Ala. App. 271, 50 South. 313; 1 Ala. App. 265, 56 South. 20; 158 Ala. 216, 48 South. 391; 53 Ala. 498; 58 Ala.. 275; 55 Ala. 250; 95 Ala. 22, 11 South. 14. Under these authorities and under the evidence in this case the court rendered the px-oper judgment in denying bail.
   PER CURIAM.

The law governing this class of cases has been so often and so clearly defined by both the Supreme Court and this court that an attempt to further state it would be a work of supererogation. In view of the fact that this case must be tried before a jury, comments upon the testimony in this record will not be made lest it have a tendency to prejudice the jury upon the final trial. Suffice it to say, we have carefully examined the record, and are of the opinion that the evidence is not such as would warrant the infliction of the extreme penalty of the law as against the petitioners. That being the case, it follows that the petitioners are entitled to bail in a reasonable amount to be fixed by the trial court, taking into consideration the gravity of the offense, the condition in life of the petitioners, and their ability to make bail, to the end that they will appear to answer the indictment which has been preferred against them. The order of the circuit judge denying bail is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions that bail be fixed in accordance with the Constitution and laws of this state as herein-above indicated: Reversed and remanded, with instructions.