Bentley v. State
112 So. 810, 22 Ala. App. 101, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 65
Opinion
The two charges refused by the court and insisted upon as error have been condemned by the Supreme Court in Edwards v. State, 205 Ala. 160, 87 So. 179.
There was no request for the general charge or motion for a new trial. We cannot therefore pass upon the insistence, made in appellant’s brief, that the defendant was entitled to his discharge on account of the insufficiency of the evidence.
We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bentley v. State, 112 So. 810, 22 Ala. App. 101, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 65 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).
112 So. 810 (Bentley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Little v. State
39 So. 2d 587 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1948)
Williams v. State
133 So. 736 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1931)