Hazelwood v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hazelwood v. State

73 So. 827, 15 Ala. App. 481, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 225

DecidedDecember 19, 1916

StatusPublished

This text of 73 So. 827 (Hazelwood 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

Hazelwood v. State, 73 So. 827, 15 Ala. App. 481, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 225 (Ala. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

EVANS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the prohibition statute. There is no bill of exceptions incorporated in the transcript, and the appeal comes here on the record proper.

We have repeatedly held that written requests to charge, refused to appellant, cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. — Clark’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291; Dorough’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208; Mitchell’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 71 South. 982; Clay’s Case, 14 Ala. 665, 71 South. 982. For the same reason, we cannot review appellant’s motion for a new trial, now authorized in criminal cases by Acts 1915, p. 722. — Mitchell’s Case, infra, 72 South. 507; Amos Smith’s Case, infra, 73 South. 824.

The proceedings and judgment entry, as disclosed by the record proper, appear in all things to be regular, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

EVANS, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for violation of the prohibition statute. There is no bill of exceptions incorporated in the transcript, and the appeal comes here on the record proper.

We have repeatedly held that written requests to charge, refused to appellant, cannot be reviewed, in the absence of a bill of exceptions. — Clark’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 633, 72 South. 291; Dorough’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 110, 72 South. 208; Mitchell’s Case, 14 Ala. App. 71 South. 982; Clay’s Case, 14 Ala. 665, 71 South. 982. For the same reason, we cannot review appellant’s motion for a new trial, now authorized in criminal cases by Acts 1915, p. 722. — Mitchell’s Case, infra, 72 South. 507; Amos Smith’s Case, infra, 73 South. 824.

The proceedings and judgment entry, as disclosed by the record proper, appear in all things to be regular, and the judgment below is accordingly affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 So. 827, 15 Ala. App. 481, 1916 Ala. App. LEXIS 225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hazelwood-v-state-alactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack