Davis v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Davis v. State

147 So. 649, 25 Ala. App. 412, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 78

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1933

Docket8 Div. 577.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 147 So. 649 (Davis 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

Davis v. State, 147 So. 649, 25 Ala. App. 412, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 78 (Ala. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of petit larceny.

It is well settled that a scintilla of evidence supporting a contention at-issue is all that is necessary to require the question raised thereby to be submitted to the jury for decision. Norwood Hospital v. Brown, 219 Ala. 445, 122 So. 411.

There was such scintilla, supporting the charge made by the state, in this case. Hence, the general affirmative charge, duly requested by ■ appellant, was properly refused.

It is, likewise, well settled that for the appellate court to be enabled to review the action of the trial court with reference to the motion for a new trial made there by the defendant (appellant) on the ground of the insufficiency of tile evidence to support the ver.diet, etc., or on any other ground, the bill of exceptions “must contain a sufficient recital to show the making of such motion, the ruling thereon, and an exception thereto" (italics ours). Ex parte Grace (Grace v. Old Dominion Garment Co.), 213 Ala. 550, 105 So. 707, 708. And see Grace v. Old Dominion Garment Co., 21 Ala. App. 96,105 So. 707.

In the instant case, no exception is shown, as required, to the ruling on appellant’s motion for a new trial; hence, etc. We have “considerEed] all questions apparent -on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions,” in accordance with the provisions of Code 1923 § 3258.

But we find no prejudicially erroneous ruling. And the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of petit larceny.

It is well settled that a scintilla of evidence supporting a contention at-issue is all that is necessary to require the question raised thereby to be submitted to the jury for decision. Norwood Hospital v. Brown, 219 Ala. 445, 122 So. 411.

There was such scintilla, supporting the charge made by the state, in this case. Hence, the general affirmative charge, duly requested by ■ appellant, was properly refused.

It is, likewise, well settled that for the appellate court to be enabled to review the action of the trial court with reference to the motion for a new trial made there by the defendant (appellant) on the ground of the insufficiency of tile evidence to support the ver.diet, etc., or on any other ground, the bill of exceptions “must contain a sufficient recital to show the making of such motion, the ruling thereon, and an exception thereto" (italics ours). Ex parte Grace (Grace v. Old Dominion Garment Co.), 213 Ala. 550, 105 So. 707, 708. And see Grace v. Old Dominion Garment Co., 21 Ala. App. 96,105 So. 707.

In the instant case, no exception is shown, as required, to the ruling on appellant’s motion for a new trial; hence, etc. We have “considerEed] all questions apparent -on the record or reserved by bill of exceptions,” in accordance with the provisions of Code 1923 § 3258.

But we find no prejudicially erroneous ruling. And the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 So. 649, 25 Ala. App. 412, 1933 Ala. App. LEXIS 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-state-alactapp-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack