Coats v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Coats v. State

42 So. 2d 593, 252 Ala. 666, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 529

Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided October 27, 1949·No. 8 Div. 536.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SIMPSON, Justice.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction because “some of the indicated excerpts from the court’s oral charge involve suggestions and intimations by the trial judge which cast discredit on the defendant’s claim of his innocence” and because “the jury could have placed this interpretation on some remarks contained in .the assertions.” (Emphasis supplied.)

We take it that by this conclusion the Court of Appeals meant that the trial court’s comments on the evidence probably resulted in prejudicial injury to the defendant. If so, a reversal was due. Kabase v. State, 244 Ala. 182, 12 So.2d 766(2).

So considered, the writ will be denied.

Writ denied.

BROWN, FOSTER, LIVINGSTON, LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

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

SIMPSON, Justice.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of conviction because “some of the indicated excerpts from the court’s oral charge involve suggestions and intimations by the trial judge which cast discredit on the defendant’s claim of his innocence” and because “the jury could have placed this interpretation on some remarks contained in .the assertions.” (Emphasis supplied.)

We take it that by this conclusion the Court of Appeals meant that the trial court’s comments on the evidence probably resulted in prejudicial injury to the defendant. If so, a reversal was due. Kabase v. State, 244 Ala. 182, 12 So.2d 766(2).

So considered, the writ will be denied.

Writ denied.

BROWN, FOSTER, LIVINGSTON, LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur.

Coats v. State, 42 So. 2d 593, 252 Ala. 666, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 529 (Ala. 1949).

Pincite

42 So. 2d 593 (Coats v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related