Case ID: ala-app_18/html/0178-01.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

(89 South. 843)
    JOHNSON v. STATE.
    (6 Div. 899.)
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 7, 1921.)
    1. Criminal law &wkey;>209 — Warrant not supported by oath or affirmation void.
    Warrant for defendant’s arrest, which was not supported by an oath or affirmation, as required by Const. 1901, § 5, held void.
    2. Habbas corpus <s==>f 11 (I) — One arrested under void warrant entitled to discharge of custody.
    Where the warrant for the arrest of a person was void because not supported by an oath or affirmation, as required by Consr. 1901, § 5, the person arrested thereunder was entitled to be discharged from custody.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Dan A. Greene, Judge.
    Petition for habeas corpus by Anthony Johnson. Petition denied, and petitioner appeals.
    Reversed and remanded.
    W. M. Woodall, of Birmingham, for appellant.
    The return of the sheriff shows that petitioner was held under a void warrant, and he is therefore entitled to his discharge. 156 Ala. 188, 47 South. 329; 81 Ala. 108, 2 South. 467 ; 94 Ala. 106, 11 South. 403 ; 30 South. 338; 34 South. 382; 162 Ala. 201, 50 South. 270; section 5, Const. 1901.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    Error is confessed.
   SAMFORD, J.

The return of the sheriff shows that he is holding the defendant upon an order in words and figures as follows:

“The State of Alabama, Barbour County. “To the Sheriff or any Constable of Said County:
“You are hereby commanded to arrest Anthony Johnson, Jr., and bring him before me, on the 15th day of February next, to answer the state of Alabama on a charge of burglary preferred by E. H. Graves.
“Witness my hand, this 15th day of February, 1921. W. B. Mitchell, J. P.”

This paper was not supported by oath or affirmation, as required by the Constitution, and is therefore void. Section 5, Const, 1901.

The right to hold the petitioner is claimed solely by reason of the warrant. The warrant being void, it follows that the petitioner was entitled to his discharge. It is but fair to state that the Attorney General concurs in this view.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded. 
      i@=>Por other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes