Cunningham v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Cunningham v. State

195 So. 295, 29 Ala. App. 264, 1940 Ala. App. LEXIS 170

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 27, 1940

Docket7 Div. 525.

StatusPublished

This text of 195 So. 295 (Cunningham 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

Cunningham v. State, 195 So. 295, 29 Ala. App. 264, 1940 Ala. App. LEXIS 170 (Ala. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief here, in which he argues valiantly that the testimony adduced against this appellant was insufficient to support the verdict of guilt returned against him; also, that some hurt-ful errors were committed in the admission, over his objection, of certain bits of testimony.

But we do not find any bill of exceptions in the transcript; hence the questions raised, as above indicated, cannot be decided by us.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

Appellant’s counsel has filed a brief here, in which he argues valiantly that the testimony adduced against this appellant was insufficient to support the verdict of guilt returned against him; also, that some hurt-ful errors were committed in the admission, over his objection, of certain bits of testimony.

But we do not find any bill of exceptions in the transcript; hence the questions raised, as above indicated, cannot be decided by us.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

195 So. 295, 29 Ala. App. 264, 1940 Ala. App. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cunningham-v-state-alactapp-1940.