Case ID: ala-app_19/html/0384-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMFORD, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(97 South. 609)
    (7 Div. 855.)
    BURNS v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    July 10, 1923.
    Rehearing Denied Oct. 16, 1923.)
    1. Criminal law <&wkey;l090(l4) — Oral charge not considered, where no bill of exceptions.
    Where no bill of exceptions was submitted, the oral charge of the court need not be considered.
    2. Criminal law &wkey;>20! — Federal prosecution held not a bar to state court prosecution on same facts.
    A prosecution in the federal court for violation of federal law does not bar prosecution in the state court for violation of a state law based on the same state of facts.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, De Kalb C'ouuty; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
    
      Zeal Burns was convicted of possessing a still, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    E. O. McCord & Son, of Gadsden, for appellant.
    • Counsel argue for error on trial, but without citing authorities.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

The record in this ease is very crudely made. Th'ere are -many clerical errors, and the record in many particulars gives evidence of having been prepared by a novice. But there sufficiently appears the organization of the court, a valid indictment,' the defendant’s plea of former conviction, demurrers to the plea, a judgment sustaining the demurrer, the defendant’s plea of not guilty, and a verdict and judgment, of conviction. There is no bill of exceptions, and therefore we will not consider the oral charge of the court.

The rulings of the court on the demurrer to the plea were free from error. It has been held by the United States Supreme Court that a prosecution in the federal court for a violation of its laws does not bar a prosecution in the state court for a violation of a state law, based upon the same state of facts, Gilbert v. State, ante, p. 104, 95 South. 502.

We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.