Harper v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Harper v. State

95 So. 917, 19 Ala. App. 202, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 84

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 17, 1923

Docket4 Div. 809.

StatusPublished

This text of 95 So. 917 (Harper 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

Harper v. State, 95 So. 917, 19 Ala. App. 202, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 84 (Ala. Ct. App. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

SAMFORD, J.

No brief has come to the hands of the court in support of this appeal, but, as required by statute, we have examined each exception reserved. No new or novel questions are presented, and in each instance the trial court has followed the well-defined rules of evidence in the admission of testimony. , In none of these rulings do we find error.

The doctrine of retreat and the defendant’s rights under the doctrine, as applied to the evidence in this case, was clearly defined to the jury in the court’s oral charge and in written charge H. Charges 1 and 2, refused to defendant, do not conform to the requirements of the doctrine and were properly refused. The other charge undertaking to define a reasonable doubt was fully covered.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

SAMFORD, J.

No brief has come to the hands of the court in support of this appeal, but, as required by statute, we have examined each exception reserved. No new or novel questions are presented, and in each instance the trial court has followed the well-defined rules of evidence in the admission of testimony. , In none of these rulings do we find error.

The doctrine of retreat and the defendant’s rights under the doctrine, as applied to the evidence in this case, was clearly defined to the jury in the court’s oral charge and in written charge H. Charges 1 and 2, refused to defendant, do not conform to the requirements of the doctrine and were properly refused. The other charge undertaking to define a reasonable doubt was fully covered.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 So. 917, 19 Ala. App. 202, 1923 Ala. App. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-state-alactapp-1923.