murder charge in which murderers got muddy in committing the crime and the trial court admitted, against the accused, the muddy clothing found in the co-conspirator's possession
How later courts described this case
- murder charge in which murderers got muddy in committing the crime and the trial court admitted, against the accused, the muddy clothing found in the co-conspirator's possession
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
On Rehearing.
On February 17, 1925, the judgment in this case was reversed» and the cause was remanded. On March 3, 1925, application for rehearing was made by the state, and on March 17th this application was overruled. On petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari writ was denied on May 28, 1925 ( 106 So. 617 1 ), and an application for rehearing in that court was denied. By reason of certain expressions appearing in the opinion of the Supreme Court, and for the purpose of making clear the opinion heretofore rendered, this court, on June 30, 1925, ordered the cause restored to the rehearing docket for further consideration.
It is rather demanded, or, shall we say, insisted, by the Special Attor"w General that the opinion of the Supreme Court rendered on application for rehearing is a mandate or order to this court that all questions save one are to be ignored, and that an affirmance of the judgment be entered. With the greatest respect for the Supreme Court, and with due consideration of the insistence of the Special Attorney General, this court adheres to its prerogative as defined in Postal Tel., etc., Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420 , 71 So. 91 :
“This court (Supreme Court) has repeatedly laid down * * * the rule that it will revise the rulings of the Court of Appeals upon certiorari only as to questions of law, and not upon a finding of facts, or in the application of the facts to the law.”
Before the decision in the Mindorhout Case there had been much difference of opinion and some, uncertainty as to the meaning of the Constitution and statutes regarding the two appellate courts. In that case the system was well considered, clearly expressed, and since then well understood by both bench and bar. This court recognizes and obeys promptly the mandates of the Supreme Court; but, in view of the law as it is, this court cannot construe the expression in the opinion referred to as being an order to this court for an affirmance of the judgment.
The former opinion is amplified and extended, and the application is overruled.
RICE, J., not sitting.
214 Ala. 2 .