King v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

King v. State

103 So. 925, 20 Ala. App. 684

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 24, 1925

Docket8 Div. 242 243.

StatusPublished

This text of 103 So. 925 (King 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

King v. State, 103 So. 925, 20 Ala. App. 684 (Ala. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

The evidence in this case has been examined and considered by this court en banc. We are of the opinion that the state failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to a conviction of either of the defendants. The probabilities of innocence are entirely too numerous to permit the conviction of these two men to stand. Jeffries v. State, 7 Ala. App. 144, 62 So. 270; McMickens v. State, 16 Ala. App. 78, 75 So. 626; Wade v. State, 17 Ala. App. 371,84 So. 858. The defendants were entitled to the general affirmative charge requested in writing. For the error in refusing these charges, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Under all the evidence here shown, the defendants were entitled to an acquittal. Reversed and remanded.

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

The evidence in this case has been examined and considered by this court en banc. We are of the opinion that the state failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to a conviction of either of the defendants. The probabilities of innocence are entirely too numerous to permit the conviction of these two men to stand. Jeffries v. State, 7 Ala. App. 144, 62 So. 270; McMickens v. State, 16 Ala. App. 78, 75 So. 626; Wade v. State, 17 Ala. App. 371,84 So. 858. The defendants were entitled to the general affirmative charge requested in writing. For the error in refusing these charges, the judgment of conviction is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Under all the evidence here shown, the defendants were entitled to an acquittal. Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 So. 925, 20 Ala. App. 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-state-alactapp-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack