Fryer v. State

109 So. 294, 21 Ala. App. 459, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 213
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 18, 1926·No. 4 Div. 165.·Published

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

The evidence was in conflict; that for the state making out a clear case of guilt under the indictment, and that for the defendant tending to prove to the contrary. Refused charge 2, being the affirmative charge, was therefore properly refused. Tatum v. State, 20 Ala. App. 436, 102 So. 726.

Refused charge 3 had reference to a count of the indictment of which the defendant was acquitted; he cannot therefore complain. Pippin v. State, 19 Ala. App. 384, 97 So. 615.

The defendant having brought out a part of a conversation between the witness Bisle and defendant, the state was entitled to everything said in the conversation. Moreover, after carefully reading this record, we are-of the opinion that this answer to which exception was taken did not affect the merits of the case.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Fryer v. State, 109 So. 294, 21 Ala. App. 459, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 213 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

109 So. 294 (Fryer v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pippin v. State
97 So. 615 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1923)
Tatum v. State
102 So. 726 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1925)