Addington v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Addington v. State

77 So. 993, 16 Ala. App. 685, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 339

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1917

Docket6 Div. 16.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 77 So. 993 (Addington v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Addington v. State, 77 So. 993, 16 Ala. App. 685, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 339 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[1] The defendant’s application for rehe.ariñg was overruled by this court on October ,19, .1916, during the first month of' the preseht term, and that order is still in the breast of the court and subject to the control of the court. Minto v. State, 9 Ala. App. 95, 64 South. 369; Ex parte Minto, 187 Ala. 671, 65 South. 516; Ex parte Adams, 187 Ala. 10, 65 South. 514.

(2j This court,-in view of the suggestion in the opinion of, Justiqe, Sayre, of the Supreme Court, concurred in 'by' Justice Thomas', (Ex parte Addington, 76 South. 6 2 ), has le-examiiied the facts as presented by the record in this case, which are set out in the opinions heretofore promulgated by Judge Brown, and reported in 74 South. 846-861, 3 and all concur that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the defendant’s conviction, and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The order overruling the defendant’s application is therefore set aside and vacated, the application is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, and the judgment of the criminal court is reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

2

200 Ala. 414.

3

Ante, p. 10.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

[1] The defendant’s application for rehe.ariñg was overruled by this court on October ,19, .1916, during the first month of' the preseht term, and that order is still in the breast of the court and subject to the control of the court. Minto v. State, 9 Ala. App. 95, 64 South. 369; Ex parte Minto, 187 Ala. 671, 65 South. 516; Ex parte Adams, 187 Ala. 10, 65 South. 514.

(2j This court,-in view of the suggestion in the opinion of, Justiqe, Sayre, of the Supreme Court, concurred in 'by' Justice Thomas', (Ex parte Addington, 76 South. 6 2 ), has le-examiiied the facts as presented by the record in this case, which are set out in the opinions heretofore promulgated by Judge Brown, and reported in 74 South. 846-861, 3 and all concur that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant the defendant’s conviction, and that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial. The order overruling the defendant’s application is therefore set aside and vacated, the application is granted, the judgment of affirmance is set aside, and the judgment of the criminal court is reversed and remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

2

200 Ala. 414.

3

Ante, p. 10.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 So. 993, 16 Ala. App. 685, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/addington-v-state-alactapp-1917.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack