Bell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bell v. State

148 So. 751, 25 Ala. App. 441, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 98

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 18, 1933

Docket7 Div. 956.

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 148 So. 751 (Bell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bell v. State, 148 So. 751, 25 Ala. App. 441, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 98 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, Judge.

The evidence both as to the guilt vel non of the defendant and as to venue was in sharp conflict, and appellant’s counsel recognizing this confines his argument to an insistence that the judgment should be reversed for and on account of the remarks of the solicitor and the refusal of the court to halt the trial, declare a mistrial, and continue the case. There was no motion to set aside the verdict.

The remarks of the solicitor were improper and so recognized by the court in its rulings. We do not think, however, that the remarks were of such a nature as to require a withdrawal of the ease from the jury as moved for by defendant. There is no ironclad rule by which the prejudicial character of improper remarks or argument of counsel can be ascertained in all cases, much depending upon the issues, parties, and general circumstances of the particular case. Bridgeforth v. State, 16 Ala. App. 584, 80 So. 158; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171.

In passing upon these questions much must be left to the sound judgment of the trial judge. In this case we cannot say that the trial judge was in error in his rulings on this ■ question.

We find no prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, Judge.

The evidence both as to the guilt vel non of the defendant and as to venue was in sharp conflict, and appellant’s counsel recognizing this confines his argument to an insistence that the judgment should be reversed for and on account of the remarks of the solicitor and the refusal of the court to halt the trial, declare a mistrial, and continue the case. There was no motion to set aside the verdict.

The remarks of the solicitor were improper and so recognized by the court in its rulings. We do not think, however, that the remarks were of such a nature as to require a withdrawal of the ease from the jury as moved for by defendant. There is no ironclad rule by which the prejudicial character of improper remarks or argument of counsel can be ascertained in all cases, much depending upon the issues, parties, and general circumstances of the particular case. Bridgeforth v. State, 16 Ala. App. 584, 80 So. 158; Anderson v. State, 209 Ala. 36, 95 So. 171.

In passing upon these questions much must be left to the sound judgment of the trial judge. In this case we cannot say that the trial judge was in error in his rulings on this ■ question.

We find no prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 So. 751, 25 Ala. App. 441, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 98, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-state-alactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack