Kornegay v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Kornegay v. State

38 So. 2d 606, 34 Ala. App. 274, 1949 Ala. App. LEXIS 372

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 1, 1949

Docket4 Div. 72.

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 So. 2d 606 (Kornegay 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

Kornegay v. State, 38 So. 2d 606, 34 Ala. App. 274, 1949 Ala. App. LEXIS 372 (Ala. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

CARR, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment charging carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age.

We are urged to reverse the judgment of the court below despite the fact *275 that the record presents no questions for our review. The proceedings in the circuit court were in every respect regular. The general affirmative charge in appellant’s behalf was not tendered. A motion for a new trial was na», filed. A few objections were interposed relating to the introduction of the evidence. In each instance, when the ruling was adverse to the accused, no exceptions were reserved. Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d 633.

Our review is limited to those matters upon which rulings at nisi prius proceedings were timely invoked. Lipscomb v. State, 32 Ala.App. 623, 29 So.2d 145. We do not hesitate to state, however, that, had the indicated questions been duly raised, we would still, find it necessary to affirm the judgment below.

It is ordered that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

CARR, Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment charging carnal knowledge of a girl under twelve years of age.

We are urged to reverse the judgment of the court below despite the fact *275 that the record presents no questions for our review. The proceedings in the circuit court were in every respect regular. The general affirmative charge in appellant’s behalf was not tendered. A motion for a new trial was na», filed. A few objections were interposed relating to the introduction of the evidence. In each instance, when the ruling was adverse to the accused, no exceptions were reserved. Kelley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 408, 26 So.2d 633.

Our review is limited to those matters upon which rulings at nisi prius proceedings were timely invoked. Lipscomb v. State, 32 Ala.App. 623, 29 So.2d 145. We do not hesitate to state, however, that, had the indicated questions been duly raised, we would still, find it necessary to affirm the judgment below.

It is ordered that the judgment of the lower court be affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 So. 2d 606, 34 Ala. App. 274, 1949 Ala. App. LEXIS 372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kornegay-v-state-alactapp-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack