Chaney v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Chaney v. State

63 So. 693, 9 Ala. App. 45, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 261

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 25, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 So. 693 (Chaney 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

Chaney v. State, 63 So. 693, 9 Ala. App. 45, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 261 (Ala. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, J. —

When this case was before us on the former appeal, we held that there was no evidence shown by the bill of exceptions connecting this defendant (jointly tried and convicted together with three co-defendants) with the commission of the offense charged, except the testimony of his accomplices. — Chaney et al. v. State, 4 Ala. App. 89, 58 South. 685. On the trial resulting in the judgment from which the present appeal is prosecuted, the evidence on the former trial was introduced, and in addition thereto the testimony of a witness not an accomplice, corroborative of this defendant’s connection with the crime charged against him.

The recitals in the bill of exceptions show that the defendant moved to exclude the testimony of this witness, but no objection is shown to have been made or exception reserved to the question or questions eliciting it, and for aught we know the answer was responsive to the question and the defendant refrained from objecting to the question speculating on a favorable answer. — Powell v. State, 5 Ala. App. 463, 58 South. 951. Nor do we think the evidence inadmissible, or that the objection to a question eliciting it, if made in time, would have been well taken.

That part of the judgment entry specifying the day of the month and the year upon which the sentence [47]*47should commence and expire is surplusage, and as it is inappropriate as applied to the changed, conditions as to time, due to the suspension of the sentence pending an appeal,' the same is stricken, and the judgment appealed from as thus corrected, is affirmed. — Perkins v. State, Infra., 63 South. 692, present term.

Corrected and affirmed.

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

PELHAM, J. —

When this case was before us on the former appeal, we held that there was no evidence shown by the bill of exceptions connecting this defendant (jointly tried and convicted together with three co-defendants) with the commission of the offense charged, except the testimony of his accomplices. — Chaney et al. v. State, 4 Ala. App. 89, 58 South. 685. On the trial resulting in the judgment from which the present appeal is prosecuted, the evidence on the former trial was introduced, and in addition thereto the testimony of a witness not an accomplice, corroborative of this defendant’s connection with the crime charged against him.

The recitals in the bill of exceptions show that the defendant moved to exclude the testimony of this witness, but no objection is shown to have been made or exception reserved to the question or questions eliciting it, and for aught we know the answer was responsive to the question and the defendant refrained from objecting to the question speculating on a favorable answer. — Powell v. State, 5 Ala. App. 463, 58 South. 951. Nor do we think the evidence inadmissible, or that the objection to a question eliciting it, if made in time, would have been well taken.

That part of the judgment entry specifying the day of the month and the year upon which the sentence [47]*47should commence and expire is surplusage, and as it is inappropriate as applied to the changed, conditions as to time, due to the suspension of the sentence pending an appeal,' the same is stricken, and the judgment appealed from as thus corrected, is affirmed. — Perkins v. State, Infra., 63 South. 692, present term.

Corrected and affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 So. 693, 9 Ala. App. 45, 1913 Ala. App. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chaney-v-state-alactapp-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack