Court Opinion

ID: 9825507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:15:58.437926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:55.791217
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
For the first time on this appeal appellant raises the question as to the jurisdiction of the court below to try and determine this case; it being claimed that the indictment upon which the trial was had was found in the circuit court of Barbour county at Eufaula and therefore the circuit court of Barbour county at Clayton, Ala., had no jurisdiction. There is no merit in this insistence. The circuit court of Barbour county at Clayton was invested with jurisdiction of the subject-matter involved in this case; that is to say, the offense charged in the indictment. Upon arraignment of the defendant he interposed a plea of “not guilty,” thereby vesting in said court jurisdiction of the person. 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. T.o this end, a formal accusation sufficient to apprise the defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation is a prerequisite to jurisdiction of the offense. Irregularities in obtaining jurisdiction of the person may be •waived. In other words, jurisdiction of the person may be conferred by consent and as stated, by pleading to the merits in this case the defendant conferred jurisdiction of his person upon the trial court in this case. Sanders v. State, 16 Ala. App. 531, 79 So. 312; King v. State, 16 Ala. App. 341, 77 So. 935.
Criticisms of the court’s oral charge here indulged present nothing for the consideration of this court. No exceptions were reserved in this connection which, of course, is a prerequisite to a review.
Other insistences upon rehearing have been considered in the opinion heretofore rendered in this case and to which we adhere.
Application for rehearing overruled.