Arthur v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Arthur v. State

107 So. 924, 21 Ala. App. 659

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 16, 1926·No. 7 Div. 130.·Published

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

We have carefully examined all the evidence adduced upon the trial of this case, as shown by the record. It was totally insufficient to warrant, the conviction of this appellant, and in overruling the defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence the court committed reversible error. Under the whole evidence, the defendant was entitled to his discharge. Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

We have carefully examined all the evidence adduced upon the trial of this case, as shown by the record. It was totally insufficient to warrant, the conviction of this appellant, and in overruling the defendant’s motion to exclude the evidence the court committed reversible error. Under the whole evidence, the defendant was entitled to his discharge. Reversed and remanded.

Arthur v. State, 107 So. 924, 21 Ala. App. 659 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

107 So. 924 (Arthur v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.