Dorough v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Dorough v. State

72 So. 208, 14 Ala. App. 110, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 40

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 6, 1916

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 72 So. 208 (Dorough 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

Dorough v. State, 72 So. 208, 14 Ala. App. 110, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 40 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PELHAM, P. J.

(1) The case was submitted on the record proper, which contains no bill of exceptions, and the trial judge’s certificate shown by the transcript states that the time for presenting a bill of exceptions had expired and no bill had been tendered. The record contains the given and refused charges requested in writing by the defendant, but does not contain the general oral charge of the court, as required by statute. — Acts 1915, p. 815. The court, in the absence of a' bill of exceptions and the oral charge of the court, cannot review the charges which were refused to the defendant.—Sis Mitchell, alias, etc., v. State, Infra, 71 South. 982.

(2) The record proper shows an indictment in due and regular form, a verdict of guilty, and a judgment of the court in conformity with the finding of the jury. An examination of the record shows regular proceedings and nothing authorizing a reversal of the case, and an affirmance of the judgment appealed from is therefore ordered.

Affirmed.

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

PELHAM, P. J.

(1) The case was submitted on the record proper, which contains no bill of exceptions, and the trial judge’s certificate shown by the transcript states that the time for presenting a bill of exceptions had expired and no bill had been tendered. The record contains the given and refused charges requested in writing by the defendant, but does not contain the general oral charge of the court, as required by statute. — Acts 1915, p. 815. The court, in the absence of a' bill of exceptions and the oral charge of the court, cannot review the charges which were refused to the defendant.—Sis Mitchell, alias, etc., v. State, Infra, 71 South. 982.

(2) The record proper shows an indictment in due and regular form, a verdict of guilty, and a judgment of the court in conformity with the finding of the jury. An examination of the record shows regular proceedings and nothing authorizing a reversal of the case, and an affirmance of the judgment appealed from is therefore ordered.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 So. 208, 14 Ala. App. 110, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorough-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack