Clayton v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Clayton v. State

13 So. 2d 423, 244 Ala. 307, 1943 Ala. LEXIS 194

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 13, 1943

Docket7 Div. 745.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 So. 2d 423 (Clayton 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

Clayton v. State, 13 So. 2d 423, 244 Ala. 307, 1943 Ala. LEXIS 194 (Ala. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

GARDNER, Chief Justice.

The Court of Appeals, in large part, rests the reversal upon the denial of the motion for a new trial; and it appears clear enough this ruling in turn is rested upon the theory that, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the verdict was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, though the opinion does not so state in so many words. Under our limited review of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, that conclusion of fact is not here reviewable. Tortomasi v. State, 238 Ala. 253, 189 So. 905; Milazzo v. State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So. 907.

In view of another trial of the cause, we may add that we are not to be understood as being in accord with the further holding of the Court of Appeals concerning the inadmissibility of the testimony as to the footprints on the wall. There is not here presented, as in Moore v. State, 4 Ala.App. 65, 59 So. 189, cited in the opinion, any question as to the identity of the defendant. That was undisputed, and therefore not in issue. But it would seem this testimony was admissible as descriptive of the surrounding facts and circumstances and as a part of the res gestae.

With the limitations herein discussed, we are at the conclusion the writ must be denied. It is so ordered.

Writ denied.

BOULDIN, FOSTER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

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

GARDNER, Chief Justice.

The Court of Appeals, in large part, rests the reversal upon the denial of the motion for a new trial; and it appears clear enough this ruling in turn is rested upon the theory that, upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances, the verdict was contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, though the opinion does not so state in so many words. Under our limited review of the opinion of the Court of Appeals, that conclusion of fact is not here reviewable. Tortomasi v. State, 238 Ala. 253, 189 So. 905; Milazzo v. State, 238 Ala. 241, 189 So. 907.

In view of another trial of the cause, we may add that we are not to be understood as being in accord with the further holding of the Court of Appeals concerning the inadmissibility of the testimony as to the footprints on the wall. There is not here presented, as in Moore v. State, 4 Ala.App. 65, 59 So. 189, cited in the opinion, any question as to the identity of the defendant. That was undisputed, and therefore not in issue. But it would seem this testimony was admissible as descriptive of the surrounding facts and circumstances and as a part of the res gestae.

With the limitations herein discussed, we are at the conclusion the writ must be denied. It is so ordered.

Writ denied.

BOULDIN, FOSTER, and LIVINGSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 So. 2d 423, 244 Ala. 307, 1943 Ala. LEXIS 194, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayton-v-state-ala-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack