Moody v. State
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Anthony v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)
- Pratt v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1972)
- Henley v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1926)
- Hayes v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1916)
- Toney v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1914)
- Parsons v. State (Ala. 1913)
- Reynolds v. State (Ala. Ct. App. 1911)
- State v. Creechley (Utah 1904)
- Spraggins v. State (Ala. 1903)
- DeArman v. State (Ala. 1884)
- Rickles v. State (Ala. 1881)
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
In Dominick v. The State (40 Ala. 680), upon an indictment for obtaining goods by false pretenses, “ on the trial the defendant pleaded, in short by consent, former acquittal, and not guilty; upon which pleas issue was joined by the State, and both pleas [issues] were submitted to the jury at the same time.” This is precisely what was done in the cause now before us. The court said: “ The defendant who pleads the two pleas together, thus tendering the two issues together, and goes to trial upon them together, without objection, must be presumed, in such a case as this, to waive the irregularity. What our ruling would be, in a case of felony, we do not decide.” This is a case of misdemeanor only.
But, the court held that there must be a reversal in that case, “because the jury did not pass upon the plea of former acquittal and only rendered a verdict on the plea of not guilty.” In this particular, also, the present case is parallel with the one cited. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty, but made no response to the issue upon the other plea.
The judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be reversed, and the cause remanded.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.