Foster v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Foster v. State

169 So. 908, 27 Ala. App. 636

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1936

Docket8 Div. 292.

StatusPublished

This text of 169 So. 908 (Foster 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

Foster v. State, 169 So. 908, 27 Ala. App. 636 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

The court has read, studied, and considered the record, including the bill of exceptions, in. this case, sitting en banc.

We are persuaded that no useful purpose would be served by a discussion of the testimony; but, assuming the duty placed upon us by the law, we find that “after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it is wrong and unjust.” Cobb v. Malone and Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738. It therefore becomes our duty to hold that the trial court was in error in refusing to grant appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant him a new trial.

For this error the judgment of conviction 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

RICE, Judge.

The court has read, studied, and considered the record, including the bill of exceptions, in. this case, sitting en banc.

We are persuaded that no useful purpose would be served by a discussion of the testimony; but, assuming the duty placed upon us by the law, we find that “after allowing all reasonable presumptions of its correctness, the preponderance of the evidence against the verdict is so decided as to clearly convince the court that it is wrong and unjust.” Cobb v. Malone and Collins, 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738. It therefore becomes our duty to hold that the trial court was in error in refusing to grant appellant’s motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and grant him a new trial.

For this error the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 So. 908, 27 Ala. App. 636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foster-v-state-alactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack