Lauderdale v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Lauderdale v. State

123 So. 286, 23 Ala. App. 221, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 173

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 7, 1929

Docket8 Div. 722.

StatusPublished

This text of 123 So. 286 (Lauderdale 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

Lauderdale v. State, 123 So. 286, 23 Ala. App. 221, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 173 (Ala. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

BRIGKEN, P. J.

The evidence adduced upon this trial, without conflict or dispute, established the corpus delicti. The evidence also tended to show the guilty participation by the defendant as to the offense charged in the indictment. Appellant relies upon several adverse rulings of .the court to effect a reversal of the judgment appealed from.

Jurors Pugh and Cox stated affirmatively that they had no fixed opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant which would bias their verdict. It nowhere appeared otherwise; therefore the court properly declined to permit the defendant to challenge these jurors for cause. The exceptions here reserved are without merit.

It does not appeal* from the record, as insisted by appellant, that the state undertook to impeach its witness Fletcher Owens. There was other evidence relied upon by the state to secure a conviction, and the charge requested by the state as to the evidence of said witness was proper a;s stating a correct principle of law, and the fact that said charge referred to the state’s witness does not make it otherwise. The charge, when given, became a part- of the law in the case and there was no error in giving said charge.

The offense here charged against appellant was susceptible of a joint commission by two or more parties; therefore the refusal of charge 2, requested by defendant, was proper. The substance of this and other charges refused to appellant was fairly and substantially covered by the oral charge and the special charges given at request of defendant.

There was no reversible error upon the trial of this case in the court below. The record proper is regular, and the judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

BRIGKEN, P. J.

The evidence adduced upon this trial, without conflict or dispute, established the corpus delicti. The evidence also tended to show the guilty participation by the defendant as to the offense charged in the indictment. Appellant relies upon several adverse rulings of .the court to effect a reversal of the judgment appealed from.

Jurors Pugh and Cox stated affirmatively that they had no fixed opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant which would bias their verdict. It nowhere appeared otherwise; therefore the court properly declined to permit the defendant to challenge these jurors for cause. The exceptions here reserved are without merit.

It does not appeal* from the record, as insisted by appellant, that the state undertook to impeach its witness Fletcher Owens. There was other evidence relied upon by the state to secure a conviction, and the charge requested by the state as to the evidence of said witness was proper a;s stating a correct principle of law, and the fact that said charge referred to the state’s witness does not make it otherwise. The charge, when given, became a part- of the law in the case and there was no error in giving said charge.

The offense here charged against appellant was susceptible of a joint commission by two or more parties; therefore the refusal of charge 2, requested by defendant, was proper. The substance of this and other charges refused to appellant was fairly and substantially covered by the oral charge and the special charges given at request of defendant.

There was no reversible error upon the trial of this case in the court below. The record proper is regular, and the judgment of conviction appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 So. 286, 23 Ala. App. 221, 1929 Ala. App. LEXIS 173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lauderdale-v-state-alactapp-1929.