Court Opinion

ID: 9691089
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:08:25.968539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:10.129395
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
On rehearing, the appellant insists that the trial judge erred in considering evidence in regard to the crime of which appellant is accused in determining the issue that the minor cannot be made to lead a correct life and cannot possibly be disciplined under the provisions of the juvenile statute, and that there is no evidence in the record to support the order of the trial judge, nor the order of affirmance by the Supreme Court.
It is true that some of the language used in our cases is a bit confusing, but when read in proper context on the issues involved in each case, we think the language used is plain enough.
Ex parte State ex rel. Echols, 245 Ala. 353, 17 So.2d 449, was an original proceeding by the state on relation of Sam Echols, a minor, by his next friend, Alice Echols, for a writ of prohibition to Joe M. Pelham, Jr., as Judge of the First Judicial Circuit, against proceedings in equity on appeal to the circuit court from an order of the juvenile court committing relator to the care and custody of the Superintendent of the Boys’ Industrial School as an incorrigible child, or for a writ of mandamus to transfer the case to the law docket.
The writs were separately and severally denied'. It was there said:
“In juvenile delinquency proceedings evidence touching the alleged homicide is admissible, along with any other evidence, on the issue of juvenile delinquency only, and in aid of a proper decision touching the correctional and disciplinary measures authorized by law which should be decreed, having a primary regard for the best interest of the child. Code, Title 13, § 361. (Emphasis supplied.)
******
"The instant proceeding- prays a writ of prohibition against any proceedings in equity; or, if so, that a trial by jury be granted on such hearing. In the alternative, a mandamus is sought to transfer the case to the law docket, looking to an investigation of the homicide by the grand jury, and, if indicted, a trial before a jury on the issue of guilty or not guilty.
“The writ of prohibition is sought upon the theory that before the entry of the decree above noted by the juvenile court, that court had made an order or decree transferring the cause to the circuit court for indictment and trial for the alleged offense pursuant to § 364. See Berry v. State, 209 Ala. 120, 95 So. 453; Powell v. State, 224 Ala. 540, 141 So. 201, 212.
******
“Not now considering the proper course to be pursued in case a proper order had been entered, but not now of record, investing the circuit court with jurisdiction under § 364, we cannot, upon full consideration of the petition and exhibits, the answer of respondent and exhibits, the replication by the relator, and all testimony offered, hold other than that the cause is properly pending in the circuit court in equity on appeal for trial de novo under § 362.
******
“If the infant is tried and convicted of a crime, and then committed to the Boys Industrial School instead of imprisonment in a penal institution, such trial must, as of course, be in due course as in the *601•case 'of any other citizen. But 'the case is different where the issue is one of-delinquency, and the proper corrective measures for the good of the child, as well as society. Prince v. State, 19 Ala.App. 495, 98 So. 320; 38 Am.Jur. 804 [sic]; 1 Wharton’s Crim.Law (11th Ed.) 473.”
. The use of the word “only,” emphasized, ■above, means that where the issue presented is only that of juvenile delinquency, evi■dence touching the alleged homicide is admissible. And, in the Echols case, supra, the court was discussing not only juvenile, delinquency vel non but the issue touching the correctional and disciplinary measures authorized by law in such cases. Title 13, Sec. 361, Code 1940. Section 362 contemplates an appeal to the circuit court, in equity, where the issues involved are tried' de novo.
In the instant case, there were two issues before the juvenile court, i. e., the issue of delinquency vel non, and also the issue of the corrigibility, or incorrigibility, ■of the infant. On appeal to the circuit •court, in equity, these two issues are tried de novo. On the trial in equity, after appeal from the juvenile court, these two issues will be before the trial court, and the evidence touching the commission of the •crime is admissible on both issues, and the juvenile court was not in error in admitting this evidence. When so considered, there was ample evidence to support the finding of the juvenile court on both issues. The cases of Stabler v. State, 273 Ala. 358, 141 So.2d 181, and Duck v. State, 278 Ala. 138, 176 So.2d 497, in so far as they conflict with what we have said above arc hereby overruled.
Opinion extended and application for re-bearing overruled.
LAWSON, SIMPSON, MERRILL and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
GOODWYN and COLEMAN, JJ., dissent.