Daniel v. State
120 So. 924, 23 Ala. App. 619
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Daniel v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 23 Ala. App. 188 →
Opinion
Appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary. The court has read the entire evidence, sitting en banc. We are of the opinion that it fails, by any legal tendency, to connect the appellant with the commission of the offense charged. For that reason, the general affirmative charge in his favor, duly requested, should have been given to the jury, and, for the error in its refusal, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Daniel v. State, 120 So. 924, 23 Ala. App. 619 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).
120 So. 924 (Daniel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.