Hackworth v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hackworth v. State

96 So. 941, 19 Ala. App. 682

Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 29, 1923·No. 8 Div. 37.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

Defendant was indicted in two counts charging manufacturing whisky and possessing a still, an'd from the judgment of conviction he appeals. ' After carefully considering the evidence as shown by the record we are of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a verdict of guilt.' The court should have so instructed the jury as requested. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Reversed and remanded.

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

SAMFORD, J.

Defendant was indicted in two counts charging manufacturing whisky and possessing a still, an'd from the judgment of conviction he appeals. ' After carefully considering the evidence as shown by the record we are of the opinion that the evidence is not sufficient to justify a verdict of guilt.' The court should have so instructed the jury as requested. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Reversed and remanded.

Hackworth v. State, 96 So. 941, 19 Ala. App. 682 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

96 So. 941 (Hackworth v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related