Court Opinion

ID: 9824657
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 11:06:08.549543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:57.014740
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING.
The defendant was convicted under the first count of the in-dictment, which embraces a charge of burglary and larceny; but, as it does not appear by affirmative averment that the property stolen was stolen from the person of another, a building on fire, a dwelling, a storehouse, warehouse, shop, railroad car, steamboat, ship, vessel, or boat used for carrying freight or *145passengers, and it does affirmatively appear from the averments of the indictment that the property stolen was not of the value of $25 or more, it must be held that the larceny charge is petit larceny, and not grand larceny. — Code 1907, § 7324. The defendant was given a sentence of ten years in the penitentiary, not for larceny (Code 1907, § 7325), but for burglary. — Code 1907, § 6415. The defect in the indictment is with respect to the offense of burglary, the offense for which the defendant was convicted and sentenced. In the case of Emmonds v. State, 87 Ala. 12, 6 South. 54, no objection was made to the indictment, and the effect of the holding in that case is that the indictment was so defective that it did not give the court jurisdiction of the offense, and hence would not support a judgment. In Sherrod v. State, 197 Ala. 286, 72 South. 540, it was held:
“Jurisdiction of the offense and of the person must concur to authorize a court of competent jurisdiction to proceed to final judgment in a criminal prosecution. — 12 Cyc. 220 (VI, G) ; Armstrong v. State, 23 Ind. 95; Ford v. State, 18 Ind. 484; Carrington v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 83; King v. People, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 297. To this end, a formal accusation sufficient to apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation is a prerequisite to the quickening into exercise the powers of the court, and to give it jurisdiction of the offense. — Constitution 1901, § 6; Butler v. State, 130 Ala. 127 [30 South. 338] ; Miles v. State, 94 Ala. 106 [11 South. 403] ; 12 Cyc. 221 (VI, H). Irregularities in obtaining jurisdiction of the person may be waived, but a formal accusation by indictment, or information, or complaint supported by oath is essential to complete jurisdiction, and cannot be waived.”
Under the holding in the Emmonds Case, which is approved as late as Burrow v. State, 147 Ala. 114, 41 South. 987, the question is jurisdictional.
(4) The only count in the indictment left to sustain the judgment being defective, we cannot apply the doctrine of error without injury.
Application overruled.