Hays v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hays v. State

140 So. 925, 25 Ala. App. 638

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 1932

Docket6 Div. 265.

StatusPublished

This text of 140 So. 925 (Hays 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

Hays v. State, 140 So. 925, 25 Ala. App. 638 (Ala. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The appellant was charged by affidavit with the offense of murder in the first degree, and this appeal is from an order wherein he was denied bail under a writ of habeas' corpu's. The rules governing matters of this sort are so well established it would serve no good purpose to reiterate them. Suffice it to say, we have read the entire evidence offered and adduced on the hearing in the court below, and after a careful consideration thereof-we are of the opinion that the lower court erred in not allowing bail to the petitioner. We pretermit a discussion of this evidence for obvious reasons. We merely hold under the evidenee contained in this record, coupled with the rules and authorities which govern, in our opinion the appellant is entitled to hall. The order and judgment of the lower court denying bail is therefore reversed, and the cause iemanded, to the end that the lowdr court'may admit appellant to bail in such reasonable sum as will be sufficient to secure his appearance in court to answer further proceedings in connection with this case.

Beversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The appellant was charged by affidavit with the offense of murder in the first degree, and this appeal is from an order wherein he was denied bail under a writ of habeas' corpu's. The rules governing matters of this sort are so well established it would serve no good purpose to reiterate them. Suffice it to say, we have read the entire evidence offered and adduced on the hearing in the court below, and after a careful consideration thereof-we are of the opinion that the lower court erred in not allowing bail to the petitioner. We pretermit a discussion of this evidence for obvious reasons. We merely hold under the evidenee contained in this record, coupled with the rules and authorities which govern, in our opinion the appellant is entitled to hall. The order and judgment of the lower court denying bail is therefore reversed, and the cause iemanded, to the end that the lowdr court'may admit appellant to bail in such reasonable sum as will be sufficient to secure his appearance in court to answer further proceedings in connection with this case.

Beversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 So. 925, 25 Ala. App. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hays-v-state-alactapp-1932.