Faucett v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Faucett v. State

121 So. 451, 23 Ala. App. 101, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 91

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 15, 1929

Docket6 Div. 470.

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 451 (Faucett 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

Faucett v. State, 121 So. 451, 23 Ala. App. 101, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinions

We have examined this entire record, and in it we find no reversible error. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing. Appellant files extended brief on application for rehearing, but no brief came to the hands of the court on the original submission. While this is permissible under our practice in criminal cases, counsel would do well to direct the attention of the court to such questions as are insisted upon as error in brief to be considered on original hearing.

It is now insisted that evidence of other worthless checks given by this defendant about the time of the utterance of the check charged in the indictment was error to a reversal, and to sustain this contention we are cited to the case of Outlin v. State, 22 Ala. App. 640, 119 So. 246, and other cases of similar import. The cases cited have no application in this case. The defendant had testified that, at the time of the handling of the raised check, the subject of this prosecution, he was not "especially needing money." The date of utterance of the forged check was October 23d. It was therefore relevant and permissible, on cross-examination, for the state to ask defendant if he did not on October 26th and 27th draw checks on the American Trust Savings Bank and cash them with Flandell (the party who cashed the forged check), which checks were not paid by the bank because of a lack of funds, as tending to contradict defendant's statement that he was not in need of funds at the time he uttered the raised check.

The application is overruled.

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

We have examined this entire record, and in it we find no reversible error. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed.

On Rehearing. Appellant files extended brief on application for rehearing, but no brief came to the hands of the court on the original submission. While this is permissible under our practice in criminal cases, counsel would do well to direct the attention of the court to such questions as are insisted upon as error in brief to be considered on original hearing.

It is now insisted that evidence of other worthless checks given by this defendant about the time of the utterance of the check charged in the indictment was error to a reversal, and to sustain this contention we are cited to the case of Outlin v. State, 22 Ala. App. 640, 119 So. 246, and other cases of similar import. The cases cited have no application in this case. The defendant had testified that, at the time of the handling of the raised check, the subject of this prosecution, he was not "especially needing money." The date of utterance of the forged check was October 23d. It was therefore relevant and permissible, on cross-examination, for the state to ask defendant if he did not on October 26th and 27th draw checks on the American Trust Savings Bank and cash them with Flandell (the party who cashed the forged check), which checks were not paid by the bank because of a lack of funds, as tending to contradict defendant's statement that he was not in need of funds at the time he uttered the raised check.

The application is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 451, 23 Ala. App. 101, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faucett-v-state-alactapp-1929.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack