Grant v. State

125 So. 790, 23 Ala. App. 371, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 14
CourtAlabama Court of Appeals
DecidedJanuary 21, 1930
Docket3 Div. 652.
StatusPublished

This text of 125 So. 790 (Grant 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
Grant v. State, 125 So. 790, 23 Ala. App. 371, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 14 (Ala. Ct. App. 1930).

Opinion

RICE, J.

The court has read the entire record and hill of exceptions, considered, and decided, the questions controlling the disposition of the appeal, in this case, sitting en banc.

We are of the opinion, and hold, that the evidence adduced upon the trial of appellant was insufficient, under the established and well-known rule, prevailing in this state, to sustain the verdict of- guilt returned by the jury, or the judgment of conviction rendered thereon. Cobb v. Malone, etc., 92 Ala. 630, 9 So. 738.

For the error in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, the judgment must he, and is, reversed, and the cause remanded.

In the event of another trial, we might observe that it was error to admit testimony of prior losses of property by the party from whom appellant was alleged to have stolen the property involved in this prosecution, said prior losses shown to bear no relation to the offense here alleged and in question.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Related

Cobb v. Malone
92 Ala. 630 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1890)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 So. 790, 23 Ala. App. 371, 1930 Ala. App. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-state-alactapp-1930.