Hanners v. State
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Sanford v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1935)
- Layton v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1929)
- Honeycutt v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1926)
- Dunn v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1922)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The indictment does not show authentication as provided by Code 1907, § 7300, which reads:
“The concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors is necessary to find an indictment; and when so found, it must be indorsed ‘a true bill’ and the indorsement signed by the foreman.”
For the failure of the indictment to bear this necessary indorsement, it is not a valid indictment and will not support a judgment of conviction. This identical question has been decided, as here, in the following cases: Memory McMullen v. State, ante, p. 504, 86 South. 175; Whitley v. State, 166 Ala. 42, 52 South. 203; Bilbo v. State, 1 Ala. App. 74, 55 South. 927; Banks v. State, 13 Ala. App. 41, 69 South. 242; Smiley v. State, 11 Ala. App. 67, 65 South. 916; Joyner v. State, 78 Ala. 448; Wilson v. State, 128 Ala. 17, 24, 29 South. 569; Coburn v. State, 151 Ala. 100, 44 South. 58, 15 Ann. Cas. 249.
No valid indictment having been shown, it is unnecessary to consider other questions presented.
Reversed and remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.