Coker v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Coker v. State

127 So. 918, 23 Ala. App. 617

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Coker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 25 Ala. App. 191 →

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 4, 1930·No. 7 Div. 625.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

The court has read the entire evidence in this case, sitting en banc. We are of the-opinion, and hold, that the same was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered thereon. There is no other question apparent worthy of discussion.

We find no prejudicial error anywhere, either in the bill of exceptions, or the record proper, and the judgment of conviction must be, and is, affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

The court has read the entire evidence in this case, sitting en banc. We are of the-opinion, and hold, that the same was sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered thereon. There is no other question apparent worthy of discussion.

We find no prejudicial error anywhere, either in the bill of exceptions, or the record proper, and the judgment of conviction must be, and is, affirmed.

Affirmed.

Coker v. State, 127 So. 918, 23 Ala. App. 617 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

127 So. 918 (Coker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.