Brooks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Brooks v. State

103 So. 922, 20 Ala. App. 673

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brooks v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 21 Ala. App. 479 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided April 7, 1925·No. 8 Div. 215.·Published

Opinion

SAMEORD, J.

There was sufficient evidence to make out a ease for the state, and therefore the general charge as requested by defendant was properly refused. Charge 11 refused to defendant has misleading tendencies, and its refusal was not error. The rulings of the court upon the admissibility of testimony were free from error. We find no error 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

SAMEORD, J.

There was sufficient evidence to make out a ease for the state, and therefore the general charge as requested by defendant was properly refused. Charge 11 refused to defendant has misleading tendencies, and its refusal was not error. The rulings of the court upon the admissibility of testimony were free from error. We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Brooks v. State, 103 So. 922, 20 Ala. App. 673 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

103 So. 922 (Brooks v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.