Banks v. State
65 So. 667, 11 Ala. App. 176, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 32
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Banks v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 13 Ala. App. 41 →
Opinion
It was permissible for the jury to find from the evidence as to the language used by the defendant to Mrs. Russell and the circumstances of its use that it was insulting, within the meaning of section 6217 of the Code. — Turney v. State, 168 Ala. 128, 52 South. 910; Carter v. State, 107 Ala. 146, 18 South. 232; Wiley v. State, 65 South. 204. It follows that the inquiry as to whether what the defendant said bad such an import was properly submitted to the jury, and that the charges requested by him were well refused.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Banks v. State, 65 So. 667, 11 Ala. App. 176, 1914 Ala. App. LEXIS 32 (Ala. Ct. App. 1914).
65 So. 667 (Banks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Carter v. State
107 Ala. 146 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Wiley v. State
65 So. 204 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1914)
Turney v. State
52 So. 910 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1910)