Clontz v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Clontz v. State

115 So. 385, 22 Ala. App. 321, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 27

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided February 7, 1928·No. 7 Div. 462.·Published

Opinion

SAMPORD, J.

We have read this entire record, ana, while there are- two technical errors in the rulings of the court, in that the state was permitted to prove that "the name of defendant had been included in a list of 'probable violators of the prohibition law handed witness by the sheriff 'of the county, and whom witness, as a law enforcement officer, was instructed to investigate, such errors are not sufficient to constitute reversible error. After a careful consideration of the whole record, we are convinced that the defendant had a fair trial. Let the judgment be affirmed. .

Affirmed.

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

SAMPORD, J.

We have read this entire record, ana, while there are- two technical errors in the rulings of the court, in that the state was permitted to prove that "the name of defendant had been included in a list of 'probable violators of the prohibition law handed witness by the sheriff 'of the county, and whom witness, as a law enforcement officer, was instructed to investigate, such errors are not sufficient to constitute reversible error. After a careful consideration of the whole record, we are convinced that the defendant had a fair trial. Let the judgment be affirmed. .

Affirmed.

Clontz v. State, 115 So. 385, 22 Ala. App. 321, 1928 Ala. App. LEXIS 27 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

115 So. 385 (Clontz v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.