Couch v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Couch v. State

90 So. 42, 18 Ala. App. 236, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 190

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 1921

Docket8 Div. 830.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 90 So. 42 (Couch 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

Couch v. State, 90 So. 42, 18 Ala. App. 236, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 190 (Ala. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and sentenced to the iicnitentiary for a term of not less than one year and three months and not more than two years. The questions raised as to the illegality of the grand jury that found and returned the indictment have been decided adversely^ to the contention of .the appellant in the case of Bob Lang v. State, 206 Ala. 58, 89 South. 166, and ante. p. 88, 69 South. 164.

[1, 2] Refused written charge 6 was substantially covered by given written charge 2 and the court’s oral charge. Aside from this, we think the charge is abstract and misleading, in that it singles out some facts or circumstances, and predicates the guilt of the ] defendant on whether they are proven, excluding a consideration on the piart of the jury of other facts, circumstances, tendencies of and inferences to be drawn from the testimony. These are the only questions insisted upon by appellant as being reversible error. We have given consideration to the, entire record and find no error therein..

The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

MERRITT, J.

The appellant was convicted of a violation of the prohibition law, and sentenced to the iicnitentiary for a term of not less than one year and three months and not more than two years. The questions raised as to the illegality of the grand jury that found and returned the indictment have been decided adversely^ to the contention of .the appellant in the case of Bob Lang v. State, 206 Ala. 58, 89 South. 166, and ante. p. 88, 69 South. 164.

[1, 2] Refused written charge 6 was substantially covered by given written charge 2 and the court’s oral charge. Aside from this, we think the charge is abstract and misleading, in that it singles out some facts or circumstances, and predicates the guilt of the ] defendant on whether they are proven, excluding a consideration on the piart of the jury of other facts, circumstances, tendencies of and inferences to be drawn from the testimony. These are the only questions insisted upon by appellant as being reversible error. We have given consideration to the, entire record and find no error therein..

The judgment of conviction is therefore affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 So. 42, 18 Ala. App. 236, 1921 Ala. App. LEXIS 190, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/couch-v-state-alactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack