Culifer v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Culifer v. State

79 So. 143, 16 Ala. App. 469, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 155

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 11, 1918

Docket4 Div. 547.

StatusPublished

This text of 79 So. 143 (Culifer 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

Culifer v. State, 79 So. 143, 16 Ala. App. 469, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 155 (Ala. Ct. App. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, P. J.

LI] This is the second appeal in this ease. The first appeal will be found reported in 73 South. 556, 557. 1 On the first trial, the verdict was for manslaughter in the first degree, which operated as an acquittal of the higher degree of homicide, and on the second trial defendant was tried only for the offense of manslaughter in the first degree, resulting in his conviction of that offense and sentence to three years in the penitentiary.

[2] While there is a bill of exceptions in the record, it shows no rulings adverse to the appellant, and it appears that all of the special charges requested by him were given. There was conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the defendant was in peril *470 when he fired the fatal shot, and as to whether or not he was free from fault. These issues were submitted to the jury by the able charge of the trial court, and we find nothing in the record that would justify us in disturbing the judgment appealed from.

Affirmed.

1

15 Ala. App. 375.

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

BROWN, P. J.

LI] This is the second appeal in this ease. The first appeal will be found reported in 73 South. 556, 557. 1 On the first trial, the verdict was for manslaughter in the first degree, which operated as an acquittal of the higher degree of homicide, and on the second trial defendant was tried only for the offense of manslaughter in the first degree, resulting in his conviction of that offense and sentence to three years in the penitentiary.

[2] While there is a bill of exceptions in the record, it shows no rulings adverse to the appellant, and it appears that all of the special charges requested by him were given. There was conflict in the evidence as to whether or not the defendant was in peril *470 when he fired the fatal shot, and as to whether or not he was free from fault. These issues were submitted to the jury by the able charge of the trial court, and we find nothing in the record that would justify us in disturbing the judgment appealed from.

Affirmed.

1

15 Ala. App. 375.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 So. 143, 16 Ala. App. 469, 1918 Ala. App. LEXIS 155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culifer-v-state-alactapp-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack