Butler v. State

17 So. 2d 429, 31 Ala. App. 354, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 310
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 28, 1944
Docket8 Div. 368.
StatusPublished

This text of 17 So. 2d 429 (Butler 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
Butler v. State, 17 So. 2d 429, 31 Ala. App. 354, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 310 (Ala. Ct. App. 1944).

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The prosecution in this case was begun by affidavit or complaint and charged this appellant with the violation of the Statute, Title 36, Section 2, of the Code of Alabama 1940. Also Title 36, Section 3.

Section 2, supra, makes it unlawful for any person who is intoxicated, to drive any motor, vehicle upon any highway of this State, etc. Section 3, supra, likewise, makes *355 it a crime for any person to drive any vehicle upon a highway carelessly and heedlessly in wilful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, etc.

The verdict of the jury was “guilty as charged in count one.” The fine was fixed at $250 and upon defendant’s failure to pay said fine he was duly sentenced to hard labor for the period of time prescribed in the statute, and upon failure or refusal to pay the costs of the proceedings or to confess judgment therefor, he was properly sentenced under the statute to hard labor for the county.

The evidence to sustain the charge in the first count was without dispute or conflict as to the commission of the offense, and there was ample evidence to connect this appellant with the commission of the offense. This question, of course, was for the jury to determine.

There appears in the record a copy of several purported written charges. These purported charges bear no endorsement “given or refused” by the trial judge. They are incorporated in the record under a heading made by the clerk who prepared it as follows: “Refused charges requested by the defendant;” and “Given charges at request of defendant.” Charges thus appearing cannot be reviewed. Woodham v. State, 28 Ala.App. 62, 178 So. 464; Berry v. State, 231 Ala. 437, 165 So. 97.

No error appearing upon the trial of this case, the judgment of conviction from which this appeal was taken will stand affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Berry v. State
165 So. 97 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Woodham v. State
178 So. 464 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 So. 2d 429, 31 Ala. App. 354, 1944 Ala. App. LEXIS 310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-state-alactapp-1944.