Adkins v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Adkins v. State

93 So. 2d 522, 265 Ala. 666, 1957 Ala. LEXIS 365

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMarch 14, 1957

Docket7 Div. 359

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 93 So. 2d 522 (Adkins v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adkins v. State, 93 So. 2d 522, 265 Ala. 666, 1957 Ala. LEXIS 365 (Ala. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRILL, Justice.

The single ground insisted upon in petition for writ of certiorari, filed by the Attorney General, is that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that “the argument to the jury by the Solicitor to the effect that if the State had not made out a case, the Court would have taken it from the jury, was improper since the Solicitor was replying to the argument of defense counsel that the State had failed to make out a case.”

We do not think the Court of Appeals meant to cite the quoted statement from 127 A.L.R. 362 as authority to be followed, but merely as a reference where citations for cases supporting part of that very general statement could be found. We think the Court of Appeals, in citing and discussing *667 Loyall v. Commonwealth, 281 Ky. 497, 136 S.W.2d 784, 127 A.L.R. 352, and State v. Nathoo, 152 Iowa 665, 133 N.W. 129, made the point clear that, while the remark of the solicitor was improper and objectionable, had the trial court sustained the defendant’s objection instead of overruling it, and possibly admonished the jury as suggested, the matter complained of would not have constituted reversible error. We so understand and construe the holding of the Court of Appeals.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

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

MERRILL, Justice.

The single ground insisted upon in petition for writ of certiorari, filed by the Attorney General, is that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that “the argument to the jury by the Solicitor to the effect that if the State had not made out a case, the Court would have taken it from the jury, was improper since the Solicitor was replying to the argument of defense counsel that the State had failed to make out a case.”

We do not think the Court of Appeals meant to cite the quoted statement from 127 A.L.R. 362 as authority to be followed, but merely as a reference where citations for cases supporting part of that very general statement could be found. We think the Court of Appeals, in citing and discussing *667 Loyall v. Commonwealth, 281 Ky. 497, 136 S.W.2d 784, 127 A.L.R. 352, and State v. Nathoo, 152 Iowa 665, 133 N.W. 129, made the point clear that, while the remark of the solicitor was improper and objectionable, had the trial court sustained the defendant’s objection instead of overruling it, and possibly admonished the jury as suggested, the matter complained of would not have constituted reversible error. We so understand and construe the holding of the Court of Appeals.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 2d 522, 265 Ala. 666, 1957 Ala. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-state-ala-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack