Brannon v. State

67 So. 1007, 191 Ala. 29, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 425
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedFebruary 11, 1915
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 67 So. 1007 (Brannon 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
Brannon v. State, 67 So. 1007, 191 Ala. 29, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 425 (Ala. 1915).

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

(1) The first count of the indictment charged in Code form that defendant was a vagrant. The fourth, on which defendant was convicted, charged that he was a keeper, proprietor, or employee of a gambling house. Evidence under the fourth count went equally as well to support the charge of the first. The Court of Appeals has found that there was such evi[30]*30deuce. We do not review that court on findings of that character. Such has been our ruling consistently followed. We must assume, therefore, that- there was evidence to support the verdict.

(2, 3) In the trial court defendant had, on request in writing, the general charge in his favor as to the first count. This was error of which defendant cannot complain. A similar charge as to the third count was refused. In this the trial court was inconsistent, of course, and upon this inconsistency defendant thinks he should have had a reversal at the hands of the Court of Appeals. But we are not of that opinion. If the court had given inconsistent instructions in respect of any one count, there would be some considerable point in the suggestion of error. But each count stood upon its own bottom and constituted a separate and distinct charge. That the court erred in favor of defendant in one instance was no reason why the error should be repeated in the other. The court could not be required or even expected to persist in error. There was nothing wrong in the court’s putting itself right as to the fourth count. This may seem rather too plain to need formal statement; but this expression of our view is made as the proper result of our due consideration of the case made on the application for certiorari. If, as defendant contends, he was convicted on evidence insufficient to support the finding, his last resort under the Constitution and- the statute creating the Court of Appeals was in that court.

The application for certiorari must be denied.

Certiorari denied.

All Justices concur.

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

Related

Sharifi v. State
993 So. 2d 907 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2008)
Turner v. State
924 So. 2d 737 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2003)
Hammers v. State
661 So. 2d 788 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1994)
Perkins v. State
580 So. 2d 4 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1991)
Gibson v. State
555 So. 2d 784 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1989)
Leverett v. State
462 So. 2d 972 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 1984)
Lawhorn v. State
89 So. 2d 693 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1956)
Lacey v. State
68 So. 706 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 So. 1007, 191 Ala. 29, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brannon-v-state-ala-1915.