Lacy v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Lacy v. State

70 So. 272, 195 Ala. 668, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 353

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 25, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 70 So. 272 (Lacy 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

Lacy v. State, 70 So. 272, 195 Ala. 668, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 353 (Ala. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

McCLELLAN,. J.

While the writ of certiorari sought must be denied because of the absence of vitiating error underlying the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals, yet it is necessary, we think, the explanation and qualification to be made should accompany the order denying the writ.

(1, 2) The refusal of charge 22, requested by the defendant, was justified on the ground that it, in effect, restricted the basis for a conviction to the conversion of the funds; whereas, the indictment also charged the larceny thereof. Furthermore, the substance of charge 22, in the particular that it correctly confined the jury’s satisfaction, to the requisite degree of the defendant’s guilt, to the means afforded by the evidence, and the evidence alone, was expressed in charge numbered 28, given at the defendant’s request.

The writ is denied.

Anderson, C. J., and Sayre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

McCLELLAN,. J.

While the writ of certiorari sought must be denied because of the absence of vitiating error underlying the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeals, yet it is necessary, we think, the explanation and qualification to be made should accompany the order denying the writ.

(1, 2) The refusal of charge 22, requested by the defendant, was justified on the ground that it, in effect, restricted the basis for a conviction to the conversion of the funds; whereas, the indictment also charged the larceny thereof. Furthermore, the substance of charge 22, in the particular that it correctly confined the jury’s satisfaction, to the requisite degree of the defendant’s guilt, to the means afforded by the evidence, and the evidence alone, was expressed in charge numbered 28, given at the defendant’s request.

The writ is denied.

Anderson, C. J., and Sayre and Gardner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 So. 272, 195 Ala. 668, 1915 Ala. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lacy-v-state-ala-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack