Cantrell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cantrell v. State

88 So. 341, 18 Ala. App. 68, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 58

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 15, 1921

Docket8 Div. 774.

StatusPublished

This text of 88 So. 341 (Cantrell 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

Cantrell v. State, 88 So. 341, 18 Ala. App. 68, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 58 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of petit larceny in the county court of Lawrence county. The appeal is direct to this court, as is provided for by an act of the Legislature. “To regulate the trial of misdemeanors in Lawrence county,” approved August 29, 1919 (Local Act of Ala. 1919, p. 86).

The property alleged to have been stolen was a pistol. The testimony on the part of the state and of the defendant shows that the property was that of the defendant; that the taking was open and in the presence of many witnesses; that there was no concealment of the property; and that defendant asked of those present at the time of the taking if they thought it would be all right. We fail to find any phase of the evidence that would support the charge of larceny.

The judgment of conviction is therefore reversed, and one here rendered discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

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

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of petit larceny in the county court of Lawrence county. The appeal is direct to this court, as is provided for by an act of the Legislature. “To regulate the trial of misdemeanors in Lawrence county,” approved August 29, 1919 (Local Act of Ala. 1919, p. 86).

The property alleged to have been stolen was a pistol. The testimony on the part of the state and of the defendant shows that the property was that of the defendant; that the taking was open and in the presence of many witnesses; that there was no concealment of the property; and that defendant asked of those present at the time of the taking if they thought it would be all right. We fail to find any phase of the evidence that would support the charge of larceny.

The judgment of conviction is therefore reversed, and one here rendered discharging the defendant.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 So. 341, 18 Ala. App. 68, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantrell-v-state-alactapp-1921.