Grimes v. State

105 So. 438, 21 Ala. App. 82, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 236
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Grimes v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 22 Ala. App. 84
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided June 30, 1925·No. 7 Div. 85.·Published

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibition laws by having whisky in his possession, and appeals.

There is nothing new or novel involved in any question here presented. It would only consume space to discuss the evidence. The solicitor was properly allowed to file the complaint. Code 1923, § 3843.

As the ease was submitted to the jury, there was only one count in the complaint ; so the criticism of the verdict is *83 without merit. The statement objected to, in the argument by state’s counsel, was not improper. Bridgeforth v. State, 16 Ala. App. 584, 80 So. 158.

We have examined critically each exception reserved, as well as the record in this case, and, finding nowhere any prejudicial error, the judgment will be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Grimes v. State, 105 So. 438, 21 Ala. App. 82, 1925 Ala. App. LEXIS 236 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

105 So. 438 (Grimes v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bridgeforth v. State
80 So. 158 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)