Case ID: ala_99/html/0194-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "COLEMAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wilson v. The State.
    
      Prosecution for Assault with Knife.
    
    1. Warrant of arrest. — A. warrant of arrest issued by a justice of the peace, directed to “any lawful officer of the State,” is in proper form (Crim. Code, §§ 4259 , 4397); and if made returnable to the “Pike County Criminal Court,” instead of the “Criminal Court of Pike county,” the variance is immaterial.
    2. -Defects-in warrant of arrest, in matters of form, are not sufficient to quash the complaint, or affidavit on which the prosecution is founded.
    3. Assault with knife. — A conviction may be had for an assault with a knife (Code, § 3747), on proof that the defendant, during an altercation with the prosecutor, advanced on him with a drawn knife, but was stopped by a bystander, and did not get nearer to him than “five or six feet,” nor attempt to cut him.
    Erom the Criminal Court of Pike.
    Tried before the Hon. Wm. H. Parks.
    The defendant in this ease was prosecuted for an “assault with a knife on the person of R. L. Ellis.” The prosecution was commenced before a justice of the peace, by an affidavit made by said Ellis; and the justice thereupon issued a warrant of arrest, directed to “any lawful officer of the State,” and returnable to tbe “Pike County Criminal Court.” On tbe trial, tbe defendant moved to quash the warrant, “on tbe ground tbat it was not in proper formand be excepted to tbe overruling of tbis motion. Said Ellis, tbe only witness examined on tbe part of tbe prosecution, testified tbat tbe defendant, during an altercation between them about a small account, “drew bis knife, and advanced to witbin two steps of witness witb tbe knife open and drawn, but was caugbt by one Bamsey, wbo stepped between them, and told bim to stop or be would get into trouble; and tbat defendant got to within about two steps of bim.” Ramsey and two other witnesses, wbo were present at tbe time, testified to tbe same facts in substance, and stated tbat thq defendant got to “witbin about five or six feet,” or “about seven feet;” and Ramsey further testified, tbat defendant “made no attempt to strike Ellis.” On tbis evidence, tbe defendant asked tbe court to charge tbe jury, “If they believe tbe evidence, they should acquit tbe defendant;” and be excepted to tbe refusal of tbis charge.
    D. A. Baker, for tbe appellant,
    cited 1 Amer. &Eng. Encyc. Law, 789,791; Statev. Blachioell, 9 Ala. 79; Lawson v. Slate, 30 Ala. 14; Johnson v. State, 35 Ala. 363; Tarver v. State, 43 Ala. 334; Grayv. State, 63 Ala. 66.
    Wm. L. Martin, Attorney-General, for tbe State.
   COLEMAN, J.

Tbe plaintiff was tried and convicted of an assauit witb a knife. The prosecution began by complaint made before a justice of the peace, returnable to the “Pike County Criminal Court of said county to answer said charge.” The warrant for tbe arrest was directed by tbe justice of tbe peace, “To any lawful officer of tbe State.” It is insisted tbat tbe warrant should have been directed to any lawful officer of the State of Alabama. The warrant follows tbe form given in tbe Code. See section 4259 of tbe Code, also, section 4397. Tbis objection, if tbe warrant bad been defective in tbe matter complained of, would not be a ground for quashing tbe complaint, which is sufficient. It could be argued witb.equal force tbat an indictment in regular form should be quashed because tbe capias, under which tbe indicted party was arrested, was defective.

Tbe next objection has even less merit, to-wit, tbat tbe warrant was not made returnable to “the Criminal Court of Pike county.” It was made.returnable to tbe “Pike County Criminal Court of said county.” We are unable to discover tbe merit, if any exists in this objection. .........

' The next exception is to the refusal of the court to charge the jury, “That if the jury believe the evidence, they should acquit the defendant.” There was legal evidence before the jury which, if believed, clearly showed the defendant’s guilt. The charge was properly refused.

Affirmed.