Harper v. State, 139 So. 115 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932). · Go Syfert
Search
Harper v. State, 139 So. 115 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Murphy v. State (alacrimapp, 2012-02-10)
Treatment trajectory · 1932 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1932 1979 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Murphy v. State
Ala. Crim. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
To establish a prima facie case of attempted murder, the State must present evidence of the accused’s specific intent to kill, and of ‘some overt act in part execution of the intent to commit the crime ... which falls short of the completed crime; the difference between attempt and commission being that the act or step fails to produce the result intended.’ Broadhead v. State, 24 Ala.App. 576 , 139 So. 115, 117 (1932).” Minshew v. State, 594 So.2d 703, 704 (Ala.Crim.App.1991).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harper
v.
State.
6 Div. 94..
Alabama Court of Appeals.
Jan 12, 1932.
139 So. 115
1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 9
Jim Gibson, of Birmingham, for appellant. The failure of the solicitor to file complaint in the circuit court was reversible error; there being no waiver shown. Johnson v. State, ante, p. 153, 132 So. 59 . Thos. E. Knight, Jr., Atty. Gen., for the State. Brief did not reach the Reporter.
Rice.
Published
RICE, J.

This is a prosecution for the violation of our “prohibition laws” by having in possession prohibited liquors, etc.

It was begun by affidavit and warrant'in the Jefferson county court of misdemeanors.

Appellant contends for error in that on appeal to the circuit court, after his conviction in the inferior court, no “complaint” was filed by the solicitor, as provided in Code 1923, § 3843. He cites, as sustaining his contention, the decision of this court in Johnson v. State, ante, p. 153, 132 So. 59.

His contention is answered adversely to him by Code 1923, § 4646, which provides, pertinently, that prosecutions for this character of offense “may continue no matter in what court or before what judge the trial shall be had upon the affidavit upon which it was originally begun.” The holding in the case cited does'not therefore apply here.

, There being no error apparent on the record, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.