Jerkins v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Jerkins v. State

135 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 651

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 1931

Docket4 Div. 788.

StatusPublished

This text of 135 So. 923 (Jerkins 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

Jerkins v. State, 135 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 651 (Ala. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

There is no phase of the evidence adduced upon the trial of this case tending to connect this appellant with the commission of the offense for which he was convicted in the court below; and, from the judgment of conviction therein, this appeal was taken, 'in the absence of any proof whatever showing or tending to show the guilt of the accused, it would be unconscionable to permit such judgment to stand. The affirmative charge was requested and refused. We are at a loss to understand why or upon what theory the trial eourt permitted the conviction of this appellant in the absence of any testimony tending in any manner to connect him with the offense complained of. The refusal of the affirmative charge requested in writing was error to a reversal.

Reversed and remanded.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

There is no phase of the evidence adduced upon the trial of this case tending to connect this appellant with the commission of the offense for which he was convicted in the court below; and, from the judgment of conviction therein, this appeal was taken, 'in the absence of any proof whatever showing or tending to show the guilt of the accused, it would be unconscionable to permit such judgment to stand. The affirmative charge was requested and refused. We are at a loss to understand why or upon what theory the trial eourt permitted the conviction of this appellant in the absence of any testimony tending in any manner to connect him with the offense complained of. The refusal of the affirmative charge requested in writing was error to a reversal.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 So. 923, 24 Ala. App. 651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerkins-v-state-alactapp-1931.