Title: Sanders v. State
Citation: 70 So. 2d 802
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: February 25, 1954

70 So. 2d 802 (1954)
SANDERS
v.
STATE.
5 Div. 420.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 25, 1954.
To the Supreme Court of Alabama:
There is now pending in the Court of Appeals of Alabama the case of Sanders v. State, in which the appellant was convicted of murder. [70 So. 2d 804]
The record shows the following during the argument of the Solicitor to the jury:
The judges of this court are unable to reach an unanimous conclusion or decision as to whether such arguments, or either of such arguments, are within the influence of the doctrine enunciated in Johnson v. State, 246 Ala. 630, 22 So. 2d 105, and cases cited therein.
Therefore, as authorized by Section 88, Title 13, Code of Alabama 1940, the following question is hereby certified to the Supreme Court of Alabama for an opinion to guide this court in the further review of the above mentioned case pending in this court.
Are the above arguments, or either of them beyond the limits of proper argument?
As an aid to your court in this inquiry the record in this cause, together with briefs of respective counsel, are forwarded to you.
Response to Questions Certified by the Court of Appeals
SIMPSON, Justice.
Answering your inquiry of January 5, 1954, propounded to this court under authority of § 88, Title 13, Code 1940, our view is that the quoted argument of the solicitor who prosecuted for the State did not go beyond the limits of legitimate forensic discussion. While the bare quotations may not give us a true picture of the exact status of the argument, it would seem to us that the statements of the solicitor were merely arguendo of his opinion of the case and what the result of the jury's verdict should be. This case should be ruled by such cases as Davidson v. State, 211 Ala. 471(5), 100 So. 641; Bridges v. State, 26 Ala.App. 1, 152 So. 51, certiorari denied, 228 Ala. 72, 152 So. 54; Snoddy v. State, 20 Ala.App. 168(21), 101 So. 303.
The foregoing are to be distinguished from Johnson v. State, 246 Ala. 630, 22 So. 2d 105, and cases there cited, in that the statements by the solicitor in these latter cases were made as a fact.
All the Justices concur.