Alston v. State

63 Ala. 178
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1879·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

BRIOKELL, O. J.

After a careful examination of the record, we find the indictment sufficient, and the proceedings were in all respects conducted in strict conformity to the modes prescribed by law. The question presented by the' bill of exceptions is the only matter to which our attention has been directed by counsel; and that must be regarded as settled adversely to the prisoner. — Smith v. The State, 9 Ala. 990; Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 527; Hudson v. State, 61 Ala. 333. A very large latitude was allowed the prisoner, in receiving evidence of the motive of another to commit the crime with which he was charged, and of his evasion of justice. Threats of such person to take the life of the deceased were, at best, hearsay only, and too remote from the inquiry before the jury to have been received.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed.

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

Alston v. State, 63 Ala. 178 (Ala. 1879).

63 Ala. 178 (Alston v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Green v. State
64 So. 2d 84 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1953)
Quinn v. State
1933 OK CR 103 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1933)
Spicer v. State
73 So. 396 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1916)
Willingham v. State
72 So. 213 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1916)
Dykes v. State
1915 OK CR 66 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1915)
Irvin v. State
1915 OK CR 13 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, 1915)
McDonald v. State
51 So. 629 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)
Storey v. State
49 So. 753 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)
State v. McLain
86 P. 390 (Washington Supreme Court, 1906)
Toliver v. State
142 Ala. 3 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1904)
Carlton v. People
37 N.E. 244 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1894)