Humes v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Humes v. State

116 So. 925, 22 Ala. App. 674

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 27, 1928

Docket8 Div. 661.

StatusPublished

This text of 116 So. 925 (Humes 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

Humes v. State, 116 So. 925, 22 Ala. App. 674 (Ala. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The evidence in this ease is without conflict or dispute. This court is of the opinion that the state in this case failed to meet the burden of proof, and that the evidence, as a whole, was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence which attended the accused throughout the trial. Under this evidence he should have been discharged. For the error in refusing the affirmative charge, re *675 quested in'writing, the judgment of conviction 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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The evidence in this ease is without conflict or dispute. This court is of the opinion that the state in this case failed to meet the burden of proof, and that the evidence, as a whole, was insufficient to overcome the presumption of innocence which attended the accused throughout the trial. Under this evidence he should have been discharged. For the error in refusing the affirmative charge, re *675 quested in'writing, the judgment of conviction is reversed and the cause remanded. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 So. 925, 22 Ala. App. 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humes-v-state-alactapp-1928.