Autrey v. State
152 So. 25, 228 Ala. 130, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 11
Opinions
After due consideration, the majority of the justices are not of opinion that the statement in the ora! charge of the court, to which the exception was reserved, constitutes reversible error, when the same is considered in connection with the other parts of the charge.
The judgment is therefore by the court ordered affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Autrey v. State, 152 So. 25, 228 Ala. 130, 1933 Ala. LEXIS 11 (Ala. 1933).
152 So. 25 (Autrey v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
American Ry. Express Co. v. Dunnaway & Lambert
92 So. 780 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1922)
Hair v. Little
28 Ala. 236 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1856)
Furhman v. Mayor of Huntsville
54 Ala. 263 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1875)
Johnson v. State
62 So. 328 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1913)
Andrews v. State
48 So. 858 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1909)