Howard v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Howard v. State

167 So. 352, 27 Ala. App. 140, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 67

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1936

Docket8 Div. 291.

StatusPublished

This text of 167 So. 352 (Howard 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

Howard v. State, 167 So. 352, 27 Ala. App. 140, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 67 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The evidence adduced upon the trial of this case in the court below was confined to that given by the state witnesses. From a judgment of conviction upon the charge of having prohibited liquor in his possession, this appeal was taken. The court en banc has read the entire evidence, and, upon consideration thereof, are of the opinion the state failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to a conviction, hence the defendant was entitled to his discharge. This action upon the part of the court was sought.in every conceivable manner. The court’s rulings in this connection were error. Alford v. State, 26 Ala.App. 188, 155 So. 388, and cases cited. There appears no necessity to discuss other insistences of error. *

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, Presiding Judge.

The evidence adduced upon the trial of this case in the court below was confined to that given by the state witnesses. From a judgment of conviction upon the charge of having prohibited liquor in his possession, this appeal was taken. The court en banc has read the entire evidence, and, upon consideration thereof, are of the opinion the state failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to a conviction, hence the defendant was entitled to his discharge. This action upon the part of the court was sought.in every conceivable manner. The court’s rulings in this connection were error. Alford v. State, 26 Ala.App. 188, 155 So. 388, and cases cited. There appears no necessity to discuss other insistences of error. *

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 So. 352, 27 Ala. App. 140, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 67, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-state-alactapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack