Coleman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Coleman v. State

110 So. 919, 21 Ala. App. 665

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 2, 1926

Docket7 Div. 242.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 So. 919 (Coleman 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

Coleman v. State, 110 So. 919, 21 Ala. App. 665 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary. A discussion of the evidence would not be helpful. There was ample corroboration for the testimony of Kenneth Wood, the confessed accomplice, and the holding in the case of Thompkins v. State, 7 Ala. App. 140, 61 So. 479, is without application here. The exceptions reserved on the taking of testimony raise, in each instance, only an elementary question of law, and, since counsel for appellant have merely discussed them in brief, without citation of authority, it would' seem sufficient for us to say that we have carefully examined each of them, and are of the opinion that the rulings of the court upon which the same were based were in each instance free from error. Likewise the written charges refused to defendant have been carefully examined, and we find that, in each instance where a correct principle of law was stated, the same was covered by and included in the trial court’s oral charge. There appears nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary. A discussion of the evidence would not be helpful. There was ample corroboration for the testimony of Kenneth Wood, the confessed accomplice, and the holding in the case of Thompkins v. State, 7 Ala. App. 140, 61 So. 479, is without application here. The exceptions reserved on the taking of testimony raise, in each instance, only an elementary question of law, and, since counsel for appellant have merely discussed them in brief, without citation of authority, it would' seem sufficient for us to say that we have carefully examined each of them, and are of the opinion that the rulings of the court upon which the same were based were in each instance free from error. Likewise the written charges refused to defendant have been carefully examined, and we find that, in each instance where a correct principle of law was stated, the same was covered by and included in the trial court’s oral charge. There appears nowhere any prejudicial error, and the judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 919, 21 Ala. App. 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coleman-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack