Court Opinion

ID: 9666669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:24:28.312755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:31.810152
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
The Attorney General, in his application for rehearing, appears to place a great reliance on Gordon v. State, 71 Ala. 315.
There is language in that opinion that says, where burglary is charged with larceny as a constituent element, there may be a conviction of either burglary or larceny; or, there may be a general conviction, though but one punishment may be imposed.
It would appear that the Gordon opinion was handed down by the Supreme Court on May 21, 1883.
Regardless of whatever effect Gordon might have, aside from Code 1940, T. 15, § 287, it must be clear that in adopting the 1923 Code, whence comes said § 287, that the Legislature being aware of Gordon, necessarily modified it pro tanto where there is any conflict between the Gordon doctrine and the later adopted § 287.
It is apodictic that a statute adopted after a decision of a court must control for cases after the date of adoption.
Thus, if Gordon is not in harmony with what we wrote on original deliverance, nevertheless, § 287 is the paramount and controlling law of Alabama.
We consider first degree murder is a felony (of course). It can be a felony within the meaning of T. 14, § 85 of the Code, which defines first degree burglary. Accordingly, if the proof to show the burglary necessarily embraces proof of first degree murder, then § 287, supra, has a field of operation.
Accordingly, the application is overruled.
Opinion extended; application overruled.
All the Judges concur.