Biggers v. State

104 So. 919, 20 Ala. App. 672
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedMay 12, 1925
Docket4 Div. 66.
StatusPublished

This text of 104 So. 919 (Biggers 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
Biggers v. State, 104 So. 919, 20 Ala. App. 672 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and appeals. It would not be useful, but would only serve to load the volumes of the reports of our deci *673 sions, for us to discuss the evidence in this case. Suffice to say that we have read same en banc, and are of the opinion that the burden of proof resting upon the state was not met. The affirmative charge requested on behalf of the defendant should have been given, and because of its refusal the judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded. Spelce v. State, 17 Ala. App. 401, 85 So. 835. Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Spelce v. State
85 So. 835 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 So. 919, 20 Ala. App. 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biggers-v-state-alactapp-1925.