Bridgeforth v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Bridgeforth v. State

80 So. 158, 16 Ala. App. 584, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 262

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 4, 1918

Docket8 Div. 620.

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 80 So. 158 (Bridgeforth 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

Bridgeforth v. State, 80 So. 158, 16 Ala. App. 584, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 262 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMPOBD, J.

From the bill of exceptions, it appears that in open court, while the trial was in progress, and while the state’s counsel was making his closing argument, he made the following statement to the jury:

“I don’t know what your experience is, but my experience has been that it is difficult to get evidence against a bootlegger; they always work' and squirm to keep from testifying.”

This remark of the solicitor, made in the! course of his address to the jury, was a reference in argument to a matter of common observation, and, if not entirely justified, was not the statement of a substantive fact' pertinent to the issue (Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476-484), nor do we think that the issues, the parties, and the general atmosphere of the ease were such as to render the remark prejudicial error (Moulton v. State [Sup.] 74 South. 454; 2 Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 South. 80, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 543). The foregoing is not in conflict with the line of cases cited in appellant’s brief, but, as was said in Moulton’s Case, supra, “each case of this character must be decided on its own merits.”

We find no error in the record, and the judgment i« affirmed.

Affirmed.

2

199 Ala. 411.

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

SAMPOBD, J.

From the bill of exceptions, it appears that in open court, while the trial was in progress, and while the state’s counsel was making his closing argument, he made the following statement to the jury:

“I don’t know what your experience is, but my experience has been that it is difficult to get evidence against a bootlegger; they always work' and squirm to keep from testifying.”

This remark of the solicitor, made in the! course of his address to the jury, was a reference in argument to a matter of common observation, and, if not entirely justified, was not the statement of a substantive fact' pertinent to the issue (Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476-484), nor do we think that the issues, the parties, and the general atmosphere of the ease were such as to render the remark prejudicial error (Moulton v. State [Sup.] 74 South. 454; 2 Birmingham Ry. Co. v. Gonzalez, 183 Ala. 273, 61 South. 80, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 543). The foregoing is not in conflict with the line of cases cited in appellant’s brief, but, as was said in Moulton’s Case, supra, “each case of this character must be decided on its own merits.”

We find no error in the record, and the judgment i« affirmed.

Affirmed.

2

199 Ala. 411.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 So. 158, 16 Ala. App. 584, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridgeforth-v-state-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack