Kent v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Kent v. State

41 So. 2d 197, 252 Ala. 371, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 427

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJune 16, 1949

Docket6 Div. 910.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 41 So. 2d 197 (Kent v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kent v. State, 41 So. 2d 197, 252 Ala. 371, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 427 (Ala. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWN, Justice.

By a long line of decisions commencing with Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992, it has been consistently held that this Court will not issue certiorari to review the decisions of the Court of Appeals on any questions of fact or the application of the law to the facts as found by the Court of Appeals in the absence of a full statement of all the evidence in the opinion, of. .that Court, affording adequate bases for review. Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, 81 So. 339; Reichert Milling Co. v. George, 230 Ala. 3, 162 So. 393.

Written instruction 8, refused to the defendant, was an invasion of the province of the jury. Ex parte Davis, 184 Ala. 26, 63 So. 1010; Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 So. 34; Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732. The petition for certiorari in the main seeks to review the Court of Appeals on the findings of fact from the evidence and the only question of law presented by the petition relates to the refusal of charge 8.

The petition for the writ of certiorari on 'the .principles and authorities stated above is due to be denied and, therefore, is denied and dismissed.

Writ denied and petition dismissed.

FOSTER, LIVINGSTON, and SIMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

BROWN, Justice.

By a long line of decisions commencing with Ex parte Steverson, 177 Ala. 384, 58 So. 992, it has been consistently held that this Court will not issue certiorari to review the decisions of the Court of Appeals on any questions of fact or the application of the law to the facts as found by the Court of Appeals in the absence of a full statement of all the evidence in the opinion, of. .that Court, affording adequate bases for review. Birmingham Southern R. Co. v. Goodwyn, 202 Ala. 599, 81 So. 339; Reichert Milling Co. v. George, 230 Ala. 3, 162 So. 393.

Written instruction 8, refused to the defendant, was an invasion of the province of the jury. Ex parte Davis, 184 Ala. 26, 63 So. 1010; Burkett v. State, 215 Ala. 453, 111 So. 34; Robinson v. State, 243 Ala. 684, 11 So.2d 732. The petition for certiorari in the main seeks to review the Court of Appeals on the findings of fact from the evidence and the only question of law presented by the petition relates to the refusal of charge 8.

The petition for the writ of certiorari on 'the .principles and authorities stated above is due to be denied and, therefore, is denied and dismissed.

Writ denied and petition dismissed.

FOSTER, LIVINGSTON, and SIMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 So. 2d 197, 252 Ala. 371, 1949 Ala. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kent-v-state-ala-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack