Court Opinion

ID: 9825063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:00:52.223979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:22.802649
License: Public Domain

*542On Rehearing.
Appellant now insists that the indictments in these cases are vitally defective in that they fail to follow in haec verba the form prescribed by section 3889 ■of the Code of 1923. It will be observed that the statutory form, supra, is not exclusive and does not apply to that part of the statute under which these defendants were convicted, to wit, a store, which with •the property therein contained was of the value of $500 or more. This constitutes a complete offense under the statute and is properly charged in the indictment. The ■construction of the statute contended for •by appellants would be “reductio ad absurdum.” Moreover, there is no ground of demurrer specifically raising this point.
As to the contention now made that the indictment should have alleged the date of the crime so as to show its ■commission after the amended statute of March 9, 1931 (Gen. Acts 1931, p. 204), this exact question is settled adversely to ■appellants in Bryan v. State, 18 Ala. App. 199, 89 So. 894.
We deem it unnecessary to further dis■cuss questions argued in appellants’ excellent brief on rehearing, as the same have been sufficiently passed on in the original ■opinion.
The application is overruled.
Opinion extended. Application overruled.