Gaines v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Gaines v. State

110 So. 600, 21 Ala. App. 579, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 321

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1926

Docket8 Div. 429.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 110 So. 600 (Gaines 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

Gaines v. State, 110 So. 600, 21 Ala. App. 579, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 321 (Ala. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Under the rules of evidence obtaining in this state fixed by our decisions, as well as by statute, we are bound to hold that there was sufficient evidence in this case upon which the trial judge could reach a conclusion of guilt. Code 1923, § 4650; Coggins v. State, 20 Ala. App. 378, 102 So. 241.

Giving the findings of the trial judge the presumptions to which they are entitled under the law, we also hold that the trial j udge did not commit error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Coggins’ Case, supra:

Recognizing the persuasive argument of appellant’s counsel, we still hold that the Act of the Legislature approved February 11, 1919 (Loc. Acts 1919, p. 17) “To provide for the institution and prosecution of misdemeanors in the circuit court of Madison county, otherwise than by indictment by the grand jury,” does not violate sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution of 1901. Roseberry v State, 20 Ala. App. 450, 103 So. 898; Reese v. State, 16 Ala. App. 430, 78 So. 460; Witt v. State, 130 Ala. 129, 30 So. 473; Thomas v. State, 107 Ala. 61, 17 So. 941.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Under the rules of evidence obtaining in this state fixed by our decisions, as well as by statute, we are bound to hold that there was sufficient evidence in this case upon which the trial judge could reach a conclusion of guilt. Code 1923, § 4650; Coggins v. State, 20 Ala. App. 378, 102 So. 241.

Giving the findings of the trial judge the presumptions to which they are entitled under the law, we also hold that the trial j udge did not commit error in overruling the defendant’s motion for a new trial. Coggins’ Case, supra:

Recognizing the persuasive argument of appellant’s counsel, we still hold that the Act of the Legislature approved February 11, 1919 (Loc. Acts 1919, p. 17) “To provide for the institution and prosecution of misdemeanors in the circuit court of Madison county, otherwise than by indictment by the grand jury,” does not violate sections 7 and 8 of the Constitution of 1901. Roseberry v State, 20 Ala. App. 450, 103 So. 898; Reese v. State, 16 Ala. App. 430, 78 So. 460; Witt v. State, 130 Ala. 129, 30 So. 473; Thomas v. State, 107 Ala. 61, 17 So. 941.

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

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 600, 21 Ala. App. 579, 1926 Ala. App. LEXIS 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gaines-v-state-alactapp-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack