finding the prohibition on double jeopardy did not apply where, even though counsel “cannot be said to have objected to the erroneous action of the court,” but “[h]e actively [sought] such dismissal and in no sense did he seek to preserve appellant’s right to have trial on the merits occur before the jury which had been impaneled to try the case”
How later courts described this case
- finding the prohibition on double jeopardy did not apply where, even though counsel “cannot be said to have objected to the erroneous action of the court,” but “[h]e actively [sought] such dismissal and in no sense did he seek to preserve appellant’s right to have trial on the merits occur before the jury which had been impaneled to try the case”
- "The conversion may just as reasonably be viewed as having occurred [in the county of prosecution], since appellant allegedly failed to account there for the funds which he had received [by virtue of his employment]."
- venue in embezzlement case lies in county in which defendant fails to account
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
HARBISON, Chief Justice.
A petition for rehearing has been filed in the above case on behalf of appellant Arlie Knight. After consideration of same, the Court is of the opinion that the petition is not well taken and the same is accordingly denied at his cost.
Justice BROCK adheres to the views expressed in his original dissenting opinion filed in this cause.
FONES, COOPER and DROWOTA, JJ., concur.