Howard v. State

168 So. 225, 27 Ala. App. 175, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 91
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 12, 1936·No. 4 Div. 214.·Published

Opinion

RICE, Judge.

The court has read, studied, and considered the record, and decided the question controlling, in this case, sitting en banc.

The law now is that: “To authorize submission of criminal case to jury, there must be substantial evidence tending to prove all elements of charge; mere scintilla of evidence, in view of presumption of innocence, being insufficient.” (Italics ours.) Ex parte Grimmett, 228 Ala. 1, 152 So. 263.

*176 Applying the above rule to the evidence in this record, it is clear that the. court erred in refusing to give to the jury at appellant’s proper request the written charge to find in her favor.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Howard v. State, 168 So. 225, 27 Ala. App. 175, 1936 Ala. App. LEXIS 91 (Ala. Ct. App. 1936).

168 So. 225 (Howard v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ex Parte Grimmett
152 So. 263 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1933)