Brown v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Brown v. State

124 Ala. 76

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 Ala. 76 (Brown 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

Brown v. State, 124 Ala. 76 (Ala. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.

— The several rulings of the trial court on the admissibility of testimony, to which exceptions were reserved, are either so obviously free from error or lacking in prejudice to the appellant that we deem a discussion of them unnecessary to the conclusion that a reversal cannot be based upon them.

The first charge requested by the defendant — viz: “If the confession of the defendant as narrated by the wit[77]*77nesses B. T. Taylor and W. H. Taylor were obtained from the defendant by a threat on their part or by a promise to release the defendant from the dart cell, if he was there confined, then yon cannot consider that evidence,” has been often adjudged bad by this court as in effect submitting to the jury the question of the admissibility of confessions. — Bob v. State, 32 Ala. 560; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 65; Redd v. State, 69 Ala. 255; Young et al. v. State, 68 Ala. 569; McCuff v. State, 88 Ala. 147.

The second charge refused to the defendant was properly refused on account of its argumentative character, if not for other reasons.

Affirmed.

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

McCLELLAN, C. J.

— The several rulings of the trial court on the admissibility of testimony, to which exceptions were reserved, are either so obviously free from error or lacking in prejudice to the appellant that we deem a discussion of them unnecessary to the conclusion that a reversal cannot be based upon them.

The first charge requested by the defendant — viz: “If the confession of the defendant as narrated by the wit[77]*77nesses B. T. Taylor and W. H. Taylor were obtained from the defendant by a threat on their part or by a promise to release the defendant from the dart cell, if he was there confined, then yon cannot consider that evidence,” has been often adjudged bad by this court as in effect submitting to the jury the question of the admissibility of confessions. — Bob v. State, 32 Ala. 560; Matthews v. State, 55 Ala. 65; Redd v. State, 69 Ala. 255; Young et al. v. State, 68 Ala. 569; McCuff v. State, 88 Ala. 147.

The second charge refused to the defendant was properly refused on account of its argumentative character, if not for other reasons.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Ala. 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-state-ala-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack