Goodman v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Goodman v. State

103 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 679

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1925

Docket1 Div. 587.

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 924 (Goodman 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

Goodman v. State, 103 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 679 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

At the January, 1924, term of the circuit court of Mobile county the grand jury returned two indictments against this appellant. By agreement, the two cases Were tried together, and the jury found the defendant guilty in- both cases, assessing fines in each case, to which the court added hard labor for the county. From the judgments of conviction the defendant appealed to this court. Upon consideration of one of these appeals (John Goodman v. State, 102 So. 486, 1 1 Div. 588), this court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the cause because of error of the court upon its rulings on the admission of testimony (Goodman v. State, 102 So. 4861). The points of decision upon this appeal of necessity are the same as in the other case, supra. It therefore appears there is nothing to do but to reverse the judgment of conviction appealed from in this case, upon the authority of Goodman v. State (Ala. App.) 102 So. 486. 1 Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 392.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

At the January, 1924, term of the circuit court of Mobile county the grand jury returned two indictments against this appellant. By agreement, the two cases Were tried together, and the jury found the defendant guilty in- both cases, assessing fines in each case, to which the court added hard labor for the county. From the judgments of conviction the defendant appealed to this court. Upon consideration of one of these appeals (John Goodman v. State, 102 So. 486, 1 1 Div. 588), this court reversed the judgment of conviction and remanded the cause because of error of the court upon its rulings on the admission of testimony (Goodman v. State, 102 So. 4861). The points of decision upon this appeal of necessity are the same as in the other case, supra. It therefore appears there is nothing to do but to reverse the judgment of conviction appealed from in this case, upon the authority of Goodman v. State (Ala. App.) 102 So. 486. 1 Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 392.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodman-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack