Franklin v. State
76 So. 476, 16 Ala. App. 192, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 250
Opinion
This appeal is on the record; no bill of exceptions having been filed. Nor is tbe general oral charge of the court set out in tbe record; therefore we cannot review tbe action of tbe trial court in refusing the written charges requested by tbe defendant and set out in tbe record proper. Paitry v. State, 196 Ala. 598, 72 South. 36.
We find no error on tbe record, and tbe judgment of conviction will be affirmed.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Franklin v. State, 76 So. 476, 16 Ala. App. 192, 1917 Ala. App. LEXIS 250 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917).
76 So. 476 (Franklin v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Thomas v. State
103 So. 479 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)
Winchester v. State
102 So. 595 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)
Motley v. State
102 So. 924 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1924)