Cornelius v. State

181 So. 127, 28 Ala. App. 176
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided March 8, 1938·No. 8 Div. 652.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder in the second degree. We are not sure but that she was guilty as charged (and convicted) even under her own testimony.

But, however that may be, it is clearly a fact that the testimony amply warranted the verdict returned.

There is really nothing apparent worthy of discussion. The few exceptions reserved on the taking of testimony are obviously without merit.

*177 The written charges requested by, and refused to, appellant, if not plainly defective in some essential way, were fully covered in substance by the trial court’s able and elaborate oral charge, or by some one of the written charges given at appellant’s request.

The record appears regular in every re-, spect, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Cornelius v. State, 181 So. 127, 28 Ala. App. 176 (Ala. Ct. App. 1938).

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

Related

Cornelius v. State
181 So. 127 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1938)