Flott v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Flott v. State

139 So. 298, 24 Ala. App. 584, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 15

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 19, 1932

Docket1 Div. 40.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 139 So. 298 (Flott 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

Flott v. State, 139 So. 298, 24 Ala. App. 584, 1932 Ala. App. LEXIS 15 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of grand larceny.

The indictment was in the form prescribed by the Code, and the demurrers thereto were properly overruled. Code 1923, § 4556, part 1 of form 64; Id. § 4527; Id. § 4905; Ragan v. State, 15 Ala. App. 694, 72 So. 506.

There was no error in allowing the state to introduce testimony of statements made by appellant relative to his possession of the logs in question. Such evidence was admissible as tending to show how his possession came about. Bryant v. State, 116 Ala. 445, 23 So. 40.

There was at least a scintilla of evidence pointing to the guilt of appellant as charged — if there was not more. So the general affirmative charge to find in his favor, which he requested, was properly refused. Norwood Hospital v. Brown, 219 Ala. 445, 122 So. 411.

The other written charges requested by appellant, and refused, have each been examined. In each instance the same was either argumentative, exacted too high a degree of proof, or not predicated upon a consideration of all the evidence. Each of them was properly refused.

We discover nowhere prejudicial error, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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