Bradley v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bradley v. State

98 So. 921, 19 Ala. App. 676

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Bradley v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 19 Ala. App. 578 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided July 10, 1923·No. 7 Div. 873·Published

Opinion

SxVMFORD, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury. After considering the testimony, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the witness Harcrew, ■ who was an accomplice in the crime, and who testified to the defendant’s participation in the offense charged, was not sufficiently corroborated by - facts and circumstances to authorize a conviction on his evidence. For this error, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Reversed and remanded.

On Rehearing.

The evidence in this case has been again considered en banc. The former opinion is withdrawn. Rehearing granted. Application granted. Reversed and remanded.

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

SxVMFORD, J.

The only question involved in this appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury. After considering the testimony, we are of the opinion that the testimony of the witness Harcrew, ■ who was an accomplice in the crime, and who testified to the defendant’s participation in the offense charged, was not sufficiently corroborated by - facts and circumstances to authorize a conviction on his evidence. For this error, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Reversed and remanded.

On Rehearing.

The evidence in this case has been again considered en banc. The former opinion is withdrawn. Rehearing granted. Application granted. Reversed and remanded.

Bradley v. State, 98 So. 921, 19 Ala. App. 676 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

98 So. 921 (Bradley v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.