Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 12-22-113 (2026)
De Novo Trial in Circuit Court; Statement of Cause of Complaint.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
The trial in the circuit court shall be de novo and without any indictment or presentment by the grand jury, but the district attorney shall make a brief statement of the cause of complaint signed by him, which maybe in the following form:
The State of Alabama, by its district attorney, complains of C.D., that, within 12 months before the commencement of this prosecution, he did (here describe the offense as in cases of indictment).
(Code 1852, §509; Code 1867, §4059; Code 1876, §4729; Code 1886, §4231; Code 1896, §4627; Code 1907, §6730; Code 1923, §3843; Code 1940, T. 15, §363.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1978–1994 · leading case: Moye v. City of Foley, 632 So. 2d 1012 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993).
Moye v. City of Foley, 632 So. 2d 1012 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “Prior to the effective date of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, the “form” for a solicitor’s complaint was found in Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-113. That Code section stated that the offense shall be described in the solicitor’s complaint “as in cases of indictment.”
Ex Parte State Ex Rel. Johnson, 636 So. 2d 1266 (Ala. Crim. App. 1994). “He appealed his convictions to the circuit court, and the district attorney filed statements of cause of complaint, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 12-22-113, against Ford on the two nontraffic misdemeanor offenses.”
Steeley v. State, 533 So. 2d 665 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). “I Section 12-22-113, Code of Alabama 1975 provides that, upon appeal from a lower court, "[t]he trial in the circuit court shall be de novo and without any indictment or presentment by the grand jury but the district attorney shall make a brief statement of the cause of…”
Burke v. City of Rainbow City, 623 So. 2d 346 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991). “Prior to his arraignment, the appellant moved to dismiss on grounds that the Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint was insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court because the city failed to comply with § 12-22-113, Code of Alabama 1975, which provides that in an…”
Ex Parte Sankey, 364 So. 2d 362 (Ala. 1978). “Section 12-22-113, Ala.Code 1975, provides that the form of the complaint in a trial de novo in the circuit court should describe the offense ".”
Royer v. State, 542 So. 2d 1301 (Ala. Crim. App. 1988). “II The appellant argues that the complaint issued against him in circuit court was unsworn and unverified and that he was charged with "the new charge of being in actual physical control of a vehicle.”
Young v. City of Hokes Bluff, 611 So. 2d 401 (Ala. Crim. App. 1992). “Section 12-22-113, Code of Alabama 1975, clearly states: "The trial in the circuit court shall be de novo and without any indictment or presentment by the grand jury, but the district attorney shall make a brief statement of the cause of complaint signed by him, which may be in…”
Coleman v. State, 420 So. 2d 808 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982). “Specifically, appellant contends that, because the record is devoid of a “brief statement of the cause of the complaint” signed by the district attorney as required by § 12-22-113, Code of Alabama 1975, this case must be reversed.”
Smith v. City of Hokes Bluff, 615 So. 2d 1300 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993). “was signed by the municipal court judge and was attested to by the city clerk. The appellant moved to dismiss on grounds that the U.”
Young v. City of Hokes Bluff, 611 So. 2d 414 (Ala. 1992). “Young moved to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that the City had failed to comply with § 12-22-113, Ala.Code 1975, which states that in an appeal to the circuit court, the city must timely file a new complaint signed by the city attorney.”
Robinson v. City of Montgomery, 518 So. 2d 204 (Ala. Crim. App. 1987). “After a jury was empan-elled, Appellant moved the trial court to dismiss the cases for lack of timely compliance with Section 12-22-113, Code of Alabama and lack of jurisdiction.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.