Gilliland v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Gilliland v. State

191 So. 403, 29 Ala. App. 72, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 34

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 30, 1939

Docket6 Div. 479.

StatusPublished

This text of 191 So. 403 (Gilliland 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

Gilliland v. State, 191 So. 403, 29 Ala. App. 72, 1939 Ala. App. LEXIS 34 (Ala. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of petit larceny.

The record is in all things regular.

No exceptions worthy of mention — we believe there were none at all — were reserved on the taking of testimony.

No written requested charges — other than the “general affirmative charge” — were refused to appellant.

The only question posed for us is as to whether or not the evidence was sufficient to cause the matter of appellant’s guilt vel non to be submitted to'the jury.

As to this, it is enough that we say we have read the testimony contained in the bill of exceptions, while sitting en banc. And that it is our opinion that the same was ample for the purpose named. For that matter, and which now, perhaps, comes to the same thing, it was sufficient to support the verdict returned. See Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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