Bellany v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Bellany v. State

93 So. 921, 208 Ala. 696

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 18, 1922

Docket6 Div. 603.

StatusPublished

This text of 93 So. 921 (Bellany v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bellany v. State, 93 So. 921, 208 Ala. 696 (Ala. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, J.

Appellant was tried for the murder of one Andrew Lester, resulting in his conviction of murder in the first degree, with the infliction of the death penalty, and from the judgment! of conviction prosecutes this appeal. The only question arising upon the trial of the cause relates to the refusal of four charges which appear 'on page 4 of the transcript. These charges are manifestly erroneous and call for no separate treatment or consideration. They were therefore properly refused. A motion for new trial was made, and evidence taken-orally before the court, based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. This motion the court has carefully considered, and, aside from a consideration of the character of this evidence, the defendant utterly failed to meet the requirements of the rule of due diligence, as set forth and established by the decisions of this court. Girardino v. B’ham. South. Rwy., 179 Ala. 420, 60 South. 871; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 198 Ala. 99, 73 South. 416; Fries v. Acme White Lead Co., 201 Ala. 613, 79 South. 45. Mindful of our duty and responsibility in cases of (his character, wo have carefully examined the record, and, finding no reversible error therein, the judgment of conviction will be here affirmed. Affirmed. All the Justices concur.

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

GARDNER, J.

Appellant was tried for the murder of one Andrew Lester, resulting in his conviction of murder in the first degree, with the infliction of the death penalty, and from the judgment! of conviction prosecutes this appeal. The only question arising upon the trial of the cause relates to the refusal of four charges which appear 'on page 4 of the transcript. These charges are manifestly erroneous and call for no separate treatment or consideration. They were therefore properly refused. A motion for new trial was made, and evidence taken-orally before the court, based upon the ground of newly discovered evidence. This motion the court has carefully considered, and, aside from a consideration of the character of this evidence, the defendant utterly failed to meet the requirements of the rule of due diligence, as set forth and established by the decisions of this court. Girardino v. B’ham. South. Rwy., 179 Ala. 420, 60 South. 871; L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Burke, 198 Ala. 99, 73 South. 416; Fries v. Acme White Lead Co., 201 Ala. 613, 79 South. 45. Mindful of our duty and responsibility in cases of (his character, wo have carefully examined the record, and, finding no reversible error therein, the judgment of conviction will be here affirmed. Affirmed. All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 921, 208 Ala. 696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bellany-v-state-ala-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack