Hicks v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hicks v. State

103 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 681

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 17, 1925

Docket8 Div. 278.

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 924 (Hicks 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

Hicks v. State, 103 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 681 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, and appeals. No brief has been submitted on behalf of appellant, and we are unable to discover prejudicial error in any ruling of the trial judge upon the admission or rejection of testimony. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict returned, and there was no error in overruling defendant’s motion for a mew trial. A detailed discussion of the several exceptions reserved on account of the admission or rejection of testimony over defendant’s objection, or of the action of the court in refusing certain written charges re-^ quested by the defendant, would involve a dis-' cussion of only elementary principles of law, and could serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that each of the charges refused to the defendant was either patently incorrect or inappropriate, or was fully covered by the oral charge of the court, in connection with the written charges given at defendant’s request. We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.

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

RICE, J.

The defendant was convicted of the offense of distilling, and appeals. No brief has been submitted on behalf of appellant, and we are unable to discover prejudicial error in any ruling of the trial judge upon the admission or rejection of testimony. There was sufficient evidence to support the verdict returned, and there was no error in overruling defendant’s motion for a mew trial. A detailed discussion of the several exceptions reserved on account of the admission or rejection of testimony over defendant’s objection, or of the action of the court in refusing certain written charges re-^ quested by the defendant, would involve a dis-' cussion of only elementary principles of law, and could serve no useful purpose. Suffice it to say that each of the charges refused to the defendant was either patently incorrect or inappropriate, or was fully covered by the oral charge of the court, in connection with the written charges given at defendant’s request. We find no prejudicial error in the record, and the judgment will be affirmed. Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 924, 20 Ala. App. 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-state-alactapp-1925.