Hairrell v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hairrell v. State

169 So. 222, 27 Ala. App. 188, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 102

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 21, 1936

Docket8 Div. 299.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 169 So. 222 (Hairrell 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

Hairrell v. State, 169 So. 222, 27 Ala. App. 188, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 102 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

Appellant’s capable counsel, in his brief filed here, says: “There was evidence that a rock was thrown by appellant and evidence that he did not throw the rock, this making a conflict as to that point and on which the appellant realizes he would not be entitled to the general affirmative charge *189 if that were the only controlling feature; but, in our opinion it was immaterial in view of the evidence that he was never within striking distance of the person alleged to have been assaulted.”

We do not agree with said counsel as to that portion of his statement which we have italicized. There was, as we read it, testimony from which the jury could rightfully infer that appellant was in “striking distance” when he threw the rock, if they found (as they did find) he threw it. So the “general affirmative charge” requested by appellant was properly refused.

We observe nothing else that seems to merit mention.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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