Berry v. State
113 So. 626, 22 Ala. App. 168, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 116
Opinion
Defendant was convicted of burglary. The corpus delicti was proven. There was evidence tending to prove that defendant was in possession of some of the goods stolen from the store at the time of the burglary. There was an effort on the part of defendant to explain this possession. This was a jury question.
We find no prejudicial error in the rulings of the court or 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
Berry v. State, 113 So. 626, 22 Ala. App. 168, 1927 Ala. App. LEXIS 116 (Ala. Ct. App. 1927).
113 So. 626 (Berry v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Pugh v. State
376 So. 2d 1135 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1979)
Huie v. State
160 So. 270 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1935)