Koonce v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Koonce v. State

93 So. 214, 18 Ala. App. 438, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 131

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 11, 1922

Docket4 Div. 691.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 93 So. 214 (Koonce 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

Koonce v. State, 93 So. 214, 18 Ala. App. 438, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 131 (Ala. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

BRICKEN, P. J.

The facts adduced upon the trial of this case, in the court below, are very similar to the facts in the case of Olark v. State (Ala. App.) 90 South. 16. 1 If there is any difference in the evidence in these cases, it would appear that the evidence offered by the state in the case at bar is not as strong as the evidence in the Olark Case, supra. The same may be said as to the eases of Mitchell v. State, 89 South. 98, 2 and Adams v. State, 90 South. 42. 3 in each of these cases this court has held that the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge, for the reason that the evidence offered upon the trial failed to make out a case against these defendants, respectively, and in each instance it was held that the proof offered was insufficient to overcome or rehut the legal presumption of innocence, which attends any one accused of the commission of a criminal offense.

A careful examination of the entire record here leads us to the same conclusion. The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded, on the authority of Clark v. State (Ala. App.) 90 South. 16, 1 Adams v. State, ante, p. 143, 90 South. 42, and Mitchell v. State, ante, p. 119, 89 South. 98.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 217.

2

Ante, p. 119.

3

Ante, p. 143.

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

BRICKEN, P. J.

The facts adduced upon the trial of this case, in the court below, are very similar to the facts in the case of Olark v. State (Ala. App.) 90 South. 16. 1 If there is any difference in the evidence in these cases, it would appear that the evidence offered by the state in the case at bar is not as strong as the evidence in the Olark Case, supra. The same may be said as to the eases of Mitchell v. State, 89 South. 98, 2 and Adams v. State, 90 South. 42. 3 in each of these cases this court has held that the defendant was entitled to the general affirmative charge, for the reason that the evidence offered upon the trial failed to make out a case against these defendants, respectively, and in each instance it was held that the proof offered was insufficient to overcome or rehut the legal presumption of innocence, which attends any one accused of the commission of a criminal offense.

A careful examination of the entire record here leads us to the same conclusion. The judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the cause remanded, on the authority of Clark v. State (Ala. App.) 90 South. 16, 1 Adams v. State, ante, p. 143, 90 South. 42, and Mitchell v. State, ante, p. 119, 89 South. 98.

Reversed and remanded.

1

Ante, p. 217.

2

Ante, p. 119.

3

Ante, p. 143.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 So. 214, 18 Ala. App. 438, 1922 Ala. App. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koonce-v-state-alactapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack